Author
The report was previously updated in April 2023.
International protection
Context
A quasi state of exception has been introduced into Hungarian law in September 2015, titled the “state of crisis due to mass migration”. During this state of crisis special rules apply to third-country nationals irregularly entering and/or staying in Hungary and to those seeking asylum, and certain provisions of the Asylum Act are suspended. The state of crisis has been used as a pretext to deviate from several EU law provisions on asylum. Eight and a half years later, the state of crisis due to mass migration is still in force. This also means that police are still authorised to carry out pushbacks across the border fence of irregularly staying migrants (including those who wish to seek asylum in Hungary) from any part of the country, without any legal procedure or opportunity to challenge this measure.
A new asylum system (embassy procedure) introduced in May 2020, severely limiting access to asylum, including for those who are legally staying in Hungary, is still in force. Asylum applications can only be lodged after a declaration of intent is approved by the asylum authority. Declarations of intent can only be lodged at the Hungarian embassy in Kyiv (Ukraine) or Belgrade (Serbia), except for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, family members of recognised refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and those being subject to forced measures, and measures or punishments affecting personal liberty if they entered legally. The Government introduced the embassy procedure by referring to the COVID pandemic. However, since COVID-19 can no longer remain a justification, the Government justifies its maintenance by the need to prevent the abuse of the asylum system on a massive scale by irregular migrants in order to allow entry only to those who are in genuine need of asylum in the EU and who are not granted it elsewhere, as well as in view of the massive and deliberate criminal activities of smugglers. Despite the CJEU judgement C-823/21 from 22 June 2023, in the infringement case of European Commission v. Hungary, finding such a system incompatible with the EU law, there was no change at all.[1]
- Key asylum statistics: 28 persons applied for international protection in Hungary in 2023, most of them (9) being Russian nationals. Concurrently, 2 statements of intent were lodged in the context of the embassy procedure, which is a dramatic decrease compared to the already low number (17) of 2022. Following an intent declaration, 5 Iranian nationals received a recommendation of the NDGAP to enter Hungary. The NDGAP granted refugee status to 11 persons, subsidiary protection to 11 persons and made in-merit rejection in 9 cases (see Statistics).
Asylum procedure
- No access to the asylum procedure: In 2023, only 28 people managed to apply for asylum in Hungary, which is substantially less than in 2022 (44). A total of 5 Iranians were issued a recommendation on the approval of entry from NDGAP, following the clear order of the court in the case litigated for more than two years by the HHC.[2]The asylum authority still continues to issue refusal decisions to those who entered Hungary legally and try to apply for asylum, stating that they are requesting something impossible, as according to the current legislative framework in place, they should submit an intent at the Hungarian Embassy prior to being allowed to apply for asylum in Hungary, despite the CJEU judgement C-823/21 from 22 June 2023, finding such a system incompatible with the EU law (see Embassy procedure).
- Push backs: In 2023, 100,138 people were pushed back to Serbia. Despite the CJEU judgement from December 2020 and five ECtHR’s judgements finding the push backs unlawful, this practice continues to take place,[3]as the Government refuses to implement these judgments (see Irregular entry and police ill-treatment).
- Access to classified data in national security cases: Despite CJEU judgement C-159/21 from 22 September 2022, which ruled that beneficiaries of international protection must have access to at least the essence of the grounds of the expert authority’s decision on national security risk, no such access was provided. The security agencies preferred to withdraw their opinion on the risk to national security instead.
Reception conditions
- Extremely low occupancy of reception centres: As in 2022, the open reception centre in Vámosszabadi remained empty the whole year (see Reception Conditions).
- Limited access to reception facilities: In 2023, the HHC was still not allowed to access reception facilities (see Access to reception centres by third parties).
Detention of asylum seekers
- Limited access to detention facilities: In 2023, NGOs were still not allowed to access detention facilities. As a result, monitoring could not be carried out, and necessary services such as free legal counselling, social assistance, psycho-social and therapeutic treatment, except on a case-by-case basis, could not be regularly provided (see Access to detention facilities).
- ECtHR judgements: In 2023, four more judgements finding the breach of Article 5, 3 and 13 with regard to detention in the transit zone were issued.[4]Hungarian authorities maintain the view that these were not places of detention, despite several binding international judgements finding the opposite. Seven more judgements were issued in asylum detention cases, finding the breach of Article 5(1)[5] (see Detention of Asylum Seekers).
Content of international protection
- Increase in rejected citizenship applications: While the number of beneficiaries of international protection applicants for Hungarian citizenship and the number of those beneficiaries who were granted Hungarian citizenship did not substantively change in 2023 compared to the previous year, two times as many applications submitted by international protection beneficiaries were rejected in 2023 than in 2022 (see Naturalisation).
- Decrease in initiating status withdrawal procedures: similarly to the trend observed in 2022, the NGDAP initiated substantively less status withdrawal procedures in 2023 compared to the previous years (withdrawal in the case of 42 persons in 2023, withdrawal in the case of 99 persons in 2022). The decrease may also be attributed to the fact that the authority was still overburdened by conducting temporary protection procedures(see Withdrawal of protection status).
- Less beneficiaries of international protection accessing services: Services provided by relevant stakeholders, primarily by NGOs, are less frequently accessed by beneficiaries of international protection. This may be attributed to the restrictive asylum policies and to the fact that service providers have been more focused on providing services designed specifically for the needs of people fleeing Ukraine (see Content of International Protection).
Temporary protection
The information given hereafter constitute a short summary of the 2023 Report on Temporary Protection, for further information, see Annex on Temporary Protection.
- Key temporary protection statistics: As of 31 December 2023, the number of temporary protection beneficiaries is still low (33,882) by regional international comparison. Compared to the national 2022 situation, this number means a slight – 17% – increase. Over the course of 2023, only 7,776 persons registered for temporary protection, less than one-fifth of the previous year’s applications. Hungary has also received a significant number of Ukrainian-Hungarian dual nationals who, due to their Hungarian citizenship, are not able to claim temporary protection and are therefore not included in the statistics. Nevertheless, they are also entitled to services provided to Ukrainian nationals, who apply for protection.[6]
Temporary protection procedure
- Breach of EU law: Under national legislation implementing the EU TP scheme, third-country nationals who had permanent residence in Ukraine are not eligible neither for temporary nor for any other adequate protection in Hungary. For the stricter border-control policy that was introduced at the beginning of 2023, third-country nationals without valid travel documents and those who were residing in Ukraine prior to 24 February 2022 and left Ukraine later but then returned, are not granted entry to Hungary. These people, even if eligible, cannot access temporary protection procedure in Hungary. People (including Ukrainians) with an entry ban issued by an EU Member State are also refused entry. The asylum procedure is not accessible to those who cannot apply for TP.
- Material reception conditions dependent upon the TP procedure: To access the whole range of reception conditions, registration for temporary protection is not sufficient, the procedure for settling temporary protection status has to have been completed and it takes up to 2-3 months. During the procedure, applicants are entitled to accommodation, but are not yet eligible to receive subsistence allowance, which is the only type of financial assistance under temporary protection. On a positive note, compared to 2022, there were no substantive delays in conducting the procedure in 2023. The efficacy of registering the TP applications, however, is still hindered by the lack of translators.
Content of Temporary protection
- Material reception conditions dependent upon employment: As a result of a legislative change, those TP beneficiaries who are not employed cannot access general state-funded housing solutions, which come with food provision. Only a very limited group of beneficiaries are exempt from this rule (e.g. pregnant woman, disabled persons, the elderly and minors). Those who are not employed may be therefore separated from those family members who can – for any reasons- access general housing. These beneficiaries may be provided accommodation at one of the two NDGAP reception centres, but they would not be provided with food.
- Absence of teaching Hungarian as a foreign language: There are no institutions designated where Hungarian as a foreign language would be taught. Teaching Hungarian is also absent from most educational institutions. This seem to be the main reasons for which many Ukrainian families still choose the Ukrainian online education over the Hungarian in-person schooling. The language barrier has also been identified as the primary reason hindering Ukrainian children’s integration.[7]
- Backlogs in healthcare provision: TP beneficiaries are entitled to receive essential healthcare provision, also in the absence of social security cover. This fact, however, is sill not known by many health-care providers, who thus refuse to provide for Ukrainians and dual nationals who fled from Ukraine. Furthermore, the fact that the validity extension of the TP cards cannot be physically seen on the TP cards makes healthcare providers generally confused. Many of them hence believe that the TP card holder is not entitled to access the TP benefits, such as healthcare.
[1] CJEU, Commission v. Hungary, Case C-823/21, 22 June 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JHxXS5.
[2] K.702.034/2023/5., 31 August 2023.
[3] ECtHR, Shahzad v. Hungary, Application No. 12625/17, Judgment of 8 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3ejMx6r; H.K. v. Hungary, Application No. 18531/17, Judgment of 22 September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3UfhucJ; S.S. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 56417/19 and F.W. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 44245/20, Judgment of 12 October 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3Uu9gPk; K.P. v. Hungary, Application No. 82479/17, Judgment of 18 January 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/4dfbjOS; R.N. v. Hungary, Application No. 71/18, Judgment of 4 May 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3xQE18p.
[4] M.A. and others v. Hungary, Application No. 58680/18, Judgment of 5 October 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3QmmPxU; S.A.B. and S.A.R. v. Others, Application No. 17089/19, Judgment of 30 November 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4aUoSRZ; O.Q. v. Hungary, Application No. 53528/19, Judgment of 5 October 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4aUoSRZ, P.S. and A.M. v. Hungary, Application No. 53272/17, 5 October 2023 available at: https://bit.ly/3UiAFCK.
[5] ECtHR, A.A. v. Hungary, Application no 7077/15, Judgment of 14 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4b10oqw, H.N. v. Hungary, Application no 26250/15, Judgment of 4 May 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JHpjTT, M.M. v. Hungary, Application no 26819/15, Judgment of 4 May 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JFA8FQ, M.N. v. Hungary, Application no. 48139/16, Judgment of 14 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3UzSZbE; DSHIJRI v. Hungary, Application no. 21325/16, Judgment of 23 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3UAmlXy and S.B. v. Hungary and M.H. v. Hungary, Appl. Nos. 15977/17 and 10940/17, Judgment of 22 February 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/3QlSn77.
[6] Modified according to the authorities’ comments to the report.
[7] In the context of the right of reply to this report, the Ministry of Interior stated that “Ukrainian children fleeing to Hungary have free access to Hungarian public education. The Hungarian public education system provides 5 lessons a week in individual preparation (Hungarian language learning, remedial catch-up education in different subjects) for children beneficiaries of temporary protection in order to facilitate remedial catch-up education and socialisation (inclusion), the costs of which are financed by the Government. This contributes to the acquisition of Hungarian language skills.” However, the statements in this paragraph of the AIDA report are based on the information provided by the NDGAP to the HHC on 2 April 2024, according to which NDGAP did not designate any institution for the purpose of Hungarian language courses, although this is required by law. Otherwise, as also detailed in the annex to this country report, it is acknowledged that Ukrainian children have access to education in Hungary. However, they do not participate in it extensively, notably due to the said language barriers. Thus, based on the experience of NGOs contributing to this report, although what is stated by the ministry above may be possible in law, this practice is not known or observed in practice.