Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Hungarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

The report was previously updated in July 2024.

National 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. Nine 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 of irregularly staying migrants across the border fence (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.

International protection

• 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. In 2025, the last exception was modified and the “illegal entry criteria was removed”. This in practice means that persons detained or those under compulsory place of stay can submit an asylum application, despite the illegal entry, but those just apprehended by the police still cannot (pushbacks are therefore not affected by this modification). This change means that there will be a slightly increased number of asylum seekers in Hungary in 2025, however the system is still incompatible with the EU law, as the CJEU judgement C-823/21 from 22 June 2023 clearly states. In April 2024, the Commission has decided to send a letter of formal notice to Hungary for failing to comply with this ruling (see Access to the procedure and registration).
• Hungary publicly announced that it has no intention of implementing the EU Asylum and Migration Pact.

Asylum procedure

• No access to the asylum procedure: In 2024, only 29 people managed to apply for asylum in Hungary and no recommendation on the approval of entry from NDGAP was issued in the embassy procedure. 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 clear judgements of domestic courts to conduct an in-merit procedure (see Refusal of applications without examination on the meritsunder Admissibility procedures).
• Push backs (see Access to the territory and pushbacks):
  • Decrease due to the change in migration pathways: In 2024, there were 5,713 pushbacks carried out, which represents a significant decrease compared with previous years, however not due to the changes in the Hungarian legislation or practice. This decline is due to a police operation and increased police presence in Northern Serbia, preventing migrants to access the Serbian-Hungarian border.
  • No compliance with the CJEU judgement: On 13 June 2024 the CJEU ruled that Hungary failed to comply with the C-808/18 judgement (push backs are against EU law) and ordered to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 200 000 000 and a penalty payment of EUR 1 000 000 per day until the date of compliance with the judgment. Hungarian Government’s reaction to the judgement was firm, they refuse to pay anything up to date and they did not make any changes in order to implement the judgement.
  • ECtHR judgement in 2024: ECtHR condemned Hungary in one collective expulsion case D. and Others v. Hungary.

• No suspensive effect in appeals against expulsion: The new GRTCN Act removed a recourse to a suspensive effect in administrative actions against a final decision ordering expulsion. This has serious implications for asylum seekers whose applications were rejected as inadmissible or in accelerated procedure, as the appeal against such decision only has suspensive effect in limited cases and since there is no suspensive effect possible against expulsion, they could be expelled before their asylum application is adjudicated in the appeal (see Admissibility procedure and Accelerated procedure).

Reception conditions

• Extremely low occupancy of reception centres: As in 2023, the reception centres had very low occupancy (see Reception Conditions).
• Limited access to reception facilities: In 2024 the HHC was still not allowed to access reception facilities (see Access to reception centres by third parties).
• No activities: There are absolutely no activities provided in reception centres and apart from using the internet, the residents have nothing to do the whole day.

Detention of asylum applicants

• Quasi automatic detention of people awaiting Dublin transfer: In 2024, 83 people were detained awaiting Dublin transfer. The HHC finds such a high number particularly worrying as it implies that the detention measure is imposed quasi automatically. It should be noted that people awaiting an outgoing Dublin transfer are not considered asylum seekers in Hungary (see Detention of Asylum Seekers).
• Limited access to detention facilities: In 2024, NGOs were still not allowed to access detention facilities (see Access to detention facilities).
• ECtHR judgements: In 2024, seven more judgements finding breaches of the Convention with regard to detention in the transit zone were issued.

Content of international protection

• Decrease in rejected citizenship applications: While the number of those beneficiaries who were granted Hungarian citizenship did not substantively change in 2024 compared to the previous year, only a third as many applications were rejected in 2024 (42) as in 2023 (119) (see Naturalisation).
• Promising trend regarding respect of the rights to family life and to family reunification: In 2024, 16 family members from 7 families were able to, lawfully and safely, join their family members living under international protection in Hungary with the assistance of the HHC (see Family reunification).
• Changes in administrative practice concerning access to classified data: Following the standards of CJEU’s case C-159/21, courts started quashing decisions based on classified data as the essence of the grounds of that data was not shared with the applicant. The Security agencies however refused to comply with the requirement of the ‘essence of the ground’. Finally in 2024, one of the security agencies disclosed some information to one asylum applicant. Unfortunately, according to HHC, the extent of the disclosure did not fulfil the required standard of the ‘essence of the grounds’ (see Withdrawal of protection status).

Temporary protection

The information given hereafter constitute a short summary of the 2024 Report on Temporary Protection, for further information, see Annex on Temporary Protection.

• Key temporary protection statistics: As of 31 December 2024, the number of temporary protection beneficiaries registered in the country was 39,168 – relatively low if compared to other countries in the region. Over the course of 2024, 8,070 persons registered for temporary protection, a slight increase compared to previous year’s applications (7,776). 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.

Temporary protection procedure

• Exclusion from the scope of TP of third-country nationals with permanent residence: 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. Due to 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 guaranteed to be granted entry to Hungary. These people, even if eligible, cannot access the 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. Instead, the procedure for settling temporary protection status, which normally lasts between 2 and 3 months, has to be completed. 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 the other hand, positively, there were no substantive delays in conducting the procedure in 2024.

Content of Temporary protection

• Drastic reduction of the scope of persons eligible for accommodation: On 28 June 2024, the government further restricted access to state-funded mass shelter of applicants and beneficiaries of temporary protection. The amending rules came into full effect on 21 August 2024 and prescribe that only certain groups of vulnerable beneficiaries of temporary protection who resided in a “territory impacted by war” remain eligible for state-funded mass shelter. The list of oblasts considered to be a “territory impacted by war” should be published, monthly, based on unclear criteria, on an official government website. Based on the regular monitoring missions of the HHC to accommodation sites, an estimated 3,000 beneficiaries of temporary protection lost their eligibility for state-funded shelter on 21 August, while around 1.000 continue to be accommodated under this scheme. In HHC’s experience, the modified rules primarily affected those coming from the Transcarpathia region of Ukraine, many being single women with children, belonging to the Roma population.
• Absence of Hungarian classes for foreign nationals: There are no designated institutions to access Hungarian courses for foreign nationals. Hungarian classes are also absent from most educational institutions. The language barrier is the main reason for which Ukrainian children cannot perform in accordance with their skills and abilities, since in many schools, Ukrainian children are expected to participate in classes of the same level as native Hungarian-speaking pupils. The repeated failure to succeed leads to further backlogs, lack of motivation and school stress. This was also the primary reasons for which many Ukrainian families still choose the Ukrainian online education over the Hungarian in-person schooling.
• Backlogs in healthcare provision: TP beneficiaries are entitled to receive essential healthcare provision, also in the absence of social security cover. Nevertheless, difficulties with receiving healthcare remained one of the most widespread issue TP beneficiaries and dual nationals had to face in 2024. Many health-care providers are still not informed regarding the rules on healthcare provision to people fleeing Ukraine, and consequently refuse to provide essential healthcare services for Ukrainians and dual nationals who fled from Ukraine. Furthermore, the fact that the validity extension is not visibly reflected on the TP cards often causes confusion among healthcare providers. As a result, many mistakenly believe that TP card holders are no longer entitled to benefits such as healthcare.