Das nach den verwerteten Erkenntnismitteln hoch defizitäre Haftanordnungs- bzw. Haftprüfungsverfahren, das die Betroffenen einer willkürlichen Behandlung aussetzt, und in dem sie in der Regel nicht einmal im Ansatz in ihrer Subjektqualität wahrgenommen werden, verstößt nicht nur gegen die menschenrechtlichen Garantien der Art. 5 und Art. 13 EMRK (vgl. zu dem Aspekt der mangelnden Eröffnung der maßgeblichen Gründe einer Inhaftierung und einer hieraus folgenden Verletzung von Art. 3 EMRK EGMR, Urteil vom 01.09.2015 – Nr. 16483/12, Khlaifia u.a./Italien -, juris; vom. 05.07.2016 – Nr. 9912/15), sondern auch – jedenfalls in Zusammenschau mit den konkreten Haftbedingungen bei desolater Unterbringungssituation und den Handlungsweisen des Personals mit systematischer Schlechtbehandlung – gegen Art. 3 EMRK und damit gegen Art. 4 GRCh. Es ist nach alledem davon auszugehen, dass angesichts der schweren Mängel des Haftanordnungsverfahrens der Kläger keine effektive und faire Chance haben wird, seine Belange in das Verfahren einzubringen und damit gehört zu werden, weshalb es dem Kläger nicht zugemutet werden konnte, in Ungarn ein (weiteres) Verfahren auf internationalen Schutz durchzuführen, mit der Folge, dass mit der Asylantragstellung im Bundesgebiet die Zuständigkeit der Bundesrepublik begründet wurde. […]
Das ungarische Asylsystem weist ungeachtet dessen auch in anderer Hinsicht weitere schwere systemische Mängel auf, worauf es aber nicht mehr entscheidend ankommt. So behandelt Ungarn u.a. Serbien als sicheren Drittstaat (vgl. aida II, S. 43 f.; vgl. auch eccre/aida, Crossing Boundaries, October 2015, 34 ff. auch zur rückwirkenden Anwendung der Drittstaatenregelung), womit die massenhaften Einreiseverweigerungen und Zurückschiebungen an der serbisch-ungarischen Grenze zu erklären sind (vgl. u.a. aida II, S. 30 ff.; Hungarian Helsinki Committee, No Country for Refugees, 28.09.2015; ai, Stranded Hope, S. 14 f.). Serbien seinerseits sieht u.a. Griechenland, Mazedonien und die Türkei als sichere Drittstaaten an. […]
Schließlich weist der Senat darauf hin, dass es nachvollziehbare und glaubhafte aktuelle Schilderungen über die Behandlung von gestrandeten Flüchtlingen an der ungarischen Grenze gibt, die deutlich machen, dass Ungarn nicht nur ständig das Refoulement-Verbot verletzt, sondern dabei auch exzessive Gewalt anwendet. Minimale menschenrechtliche Standards werden auch dadurch verletzt, dass im Rahmen des Grenzregimes wiederholte erfolgreiche Versuche gegeben hat, ungarische NGOs daran zu hindern, durch eigene Hilfsmaßnahmen und Hilfsprojekte die äußerst schlechten Lebensbedingungen der an der Grenze ausharrenden Menschen zu lindern (amnesty international, So schlecht wie möglich, August 2016). Diese bei den handelnden staatlichen Organen offensichtlich vorherrschende ablehnende bis gar feindliche Grundeinstellung gegenüber Flüchtlingen, die in vielfach geschilderten Gewaltexzessen und in der inhumanen Verhinderung von Hilfseinsetzen von ungarischen NGOs exemplarisch zum Ausdruck kommt, lässt nach Überzeugung des Senats auch Rückschlüsse auf die oben geschilderte Schlechtbehandlung in der Asylhaft zu. Die Plausibilität und Glaubhaftigkeit der diesbezüglichen Berichte wird dadurch untermauert. Diese Feststellungen haben daher indirekt auch Relevanz für die Einschätzung der (künftigen) Situation des Klägers. […]
Abschließend weist der Senat noch darauf hin, dass am 10.12.2015 die Europäische Kommission gegen Ungarn ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren eingeleitet hat (vgl. Presserklärung der Europäischen Kommission vom 10.12.2015). Dieses hat im Wesentlichen die Effektivität des Rechtsschutzes zum Gegenstand. […]
Die in Ziffer 2 verfügte Abschiebungsanordnung setzt nach § 34a Abs. 1 AsylG voraus, dass die Abschiebung in den zuständigen Mitgliedstaat erfolgen kann und dies auch alsbald der Fall sein wird. Bestehen hinreichende Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass dieses nicht der Fall sein könnte, ist die Beklagte ggf.
darlegungspflichtig, dass diese Voraussetzungen gleichwohl (noch) vorliegen (vgl. BVerwG, Urteil vom 27.04.2016 – 1 C 24.15 -, juris). Zum einen ergab sich schon aus dem von der Beklagten selbst dem Senat bereits im Verfahren A 11 S 976/16 vorgelegten Quartalsbericht IV 2015 zum Mitgliedstaat Ungarn vom 27.01.2016, dass im gesamten Jahr 2015 von 33.220 Zustimmungsfällen tatsächlich nur 1.402 nach Ungarn überstellt worden waren, was einer Quote von 4,2 v.H. entsprach; im 4. Quartal war die Quote sogar auf 3,3 v.H. gesunken. Die mittlerweile vorliegende Dublin-Statistik für das 1. Halbjahr und das von der Beklagten im vorliegenden Verfahren vorgelegte statistische Material zeichnen ein vergleichbares Bild; die Überstellungsquote betrug im gesamten 1. Halbjahr 2016 lediglich 7,14 v.H. (vgl. BAMF: Dublin-Statistik 1. Jahreshälfte 2016), was unübersehbar zu einem enormen Rückstau von Überstellungen geführt haben muss. Erst um die Jahresmitte 2016 hat sich die Quote deutlich verbessert, was ersichtlich auf die gesunkene Zahl
von Zustimmungen Ungarns zurückzuführen ist. Die Zahlen der erfolgten Überstellungen liegen aber immer noch deutlich unter der Zahl der Zustimmungen. An der sehr niedrigen Überstellungsquote und dem infolge dessen entstandenen extremen Rückstau hat sich somit nichts Grundlegendes geändert, er wächst sogar weiter ständig an. Allerdings finden durchaus regelmäßig Überstellungen statt, obwohl offizielle ungarische Verlautbarungen etwas anderes nahe legen. Soweit die Beklagte darauf abhebt, dass bei der Beurteilung und der Bewertung der Überstellungsquote berücksichtigt werden müssen, dass „viele“ Abschiebungen aus mancherlei Gründen nicht durchgeführt werden könnten, etwa weil sich die Betroffenen verweigern oder entziehen würden, so ist dieses zweifellos richtig. In der mündlichen Verhandlung wurde dieser Aspekt, insbesondere die naheliegende Frage, was unter „viele“ zu verstehen ist erörtert, von der Beklagten aber nicht beantwortet oder erläutert, da sie ohne vorherige Mitteilung der Verhandlung fern geblieben ist. Auch hatte die Beklagte auf die Anfrage des Senats, kein bestimmtes Handlungsmuster darlegen können, nach dem die Überstellungen durchgeführt und v.a. der Rückstau abgearbeitet werden soll, wobei hier nochmals darauf hinzuweisen ist, dass dieser gegenwärtig noch weiter zunimmt. Allein deshalb ist Ziffer 2 der angegriffenen Verfügung aufzuheben. Der Senat sieht sich in seiner Einschätzung, dass der erhebliche Rückstau nicht in absehbarer Zeit abgebaut werden kann und wird, darin bestätigt, dass das für die Aufenthaltsbeendigung in ganz Baden-Württemberg zuständige Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe auf die Anfrage des Senats am 12.10.2016 mitgeteilt hat, dass im gesamten Jahre 2016 bislang 12 Überstellungen nach Ungarn durchgeführt worden sind. Bereits aufgrund dessen ist die Abschiebungsanordnung aufzuheben.
Die dargestellte Problematik hat jedoch auch weitergehende Folgen und berührt – ungeachtet der Ausführungen unter I – die Rechtmäßigkeit der Ziffer 1, in der der Asylantrag als unzulässig abgelehnt worden war. [….]
Zusammenfassung des Berichts:
Fences, teargas, and draconian legislation: over the last year the Hungarian authorities have baulked at little in their determination to keep refugees and migrants out of the country. The government’s programme of militarization, criminalization and isolation – that it touts as “Schengen 2.0” – has ushered in a set of measures which have resulted in violent push-backs at the border with Serbia, unlawful detentions inside the country and dire living conditions for those waiting at the border. While the Hungarian government has spent millions of Euros on a xenophobic advertising campaign, refugees are left to languish.
The Hungarian government’s anti-refugee campaign will reach a new nadir on 2 October 2016 when Hungarians will be asked to vote on the mandatory relocation of asylum-seekers in Hungary. But the real questions are bigger; is Hungary prepared to accept refugees at all? Is it prepared to work within the framework of EU rules to find shared solutions to an EU-wide challenge? The government’s intentional blurring of the lines between seeking asylum and other forms of migration goes hand in hand with its labelling refugees and migrants as “illegal” and as threats to national security. The toxic rhetoric of the Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, calling asylum-seekers “poison”, has trickled down to the level of local government and often permeates the context in which police and local asylum centres operate.
Hungary has erected a series of legal and physical barriers around the country to keep refugees and migrants out. It has constructed a border fence at its southern border with Serbia and Croatia, and criminalized irregular entry across it. Within a year, close to three thousand refugees and migrants were penalized. Thousands of people have also been denied entry or returned forcibly to Serbia since the law was changed in July 2016 to allow the immediate return of those caught at the border fence or up to 8 km inside Hungarian territory.
The Hungarian government has not been content to isolate itself behind its fences. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has, instead, invested considerable energy into convincing EU colleagues of the merits of “Schengen 2.0”. He has even found some support. This briefing documents some of the pernicious consequences of Hungary’s current policies and gives a taste of what awaits refugees seeking sanctuary in Europe if other countries seek to replicate them. This briefing documents the plight of refugees and migrants as they wait in dire conditions to enter the country; as they get pushed back to Serbia, sometimes violently and without access to any procedure; as they are routinely detained in centres where they are “treated like animals” and as they make their way through an asylum procedure designed to reject them.
The only way to enter Hungary regularly and apply for asylum is through its “transit zones”, a set of metal containers set up at the border following the completion of the border fence. Only 30 people are admitted to the “transit zones” each day; others languish in substandard conditions in makeshift camps at the border area, or in overcrowded centres across Serbia waiting for their turn to arrive to enter Hungary, based on an “entering plan” submitted by asylum-seekers themselves. Hungary fails to ensure that those who can’t be admitted to the asylum procedure immediately receive humane treatment, including access to sanitation, medical care and adequate accommodation conditions.
With such heavy restrictions on regular entry to the country, many choose to cross the border irregularly after months of waiting. They are stopped and returned immediately, without any consideration of their needs for protection or particular vulnerabilities. Refugees and migrants told Amnesty International about excessive use of force, including beatings, kicking and chasing back with dogs and unlawful returns (or “push backs”) to Serbia. Inside the “transit zone” containers, authorities unlawfully detain without ground most men traveling without family for up to four weeks. Most of them have their asylum applications declared inadmissible on the grounds that they came through Serbia, a “safe third country”, where they should have applied for asylum.
As Serbia does not formally take them back and does not provide access to a fair and individualized asylum process, those pushed back out of the containers have little other option than to attempt a different route to the EU. Those who do get into the country risk a multitude of further rights violations. The detention of asylum-seekers has become routine. In early August, over half of the twelve hundred asylum-seekers residing in Hungary were in asylum detention. Despite repeated requests, Amnesty International was not allowed to visit the asylum detention centres to document the conditions asylum-seekers were kept in. However, the organization has interviewed several former detainees in the Körmend tent camp and in Austria, who reported beatings and threats of violence by the police and security guards inside the detention centre. They also spoke of the frustration and trauma among the asylum-seekers locked up without having committed a crime. Amnesty International interviewed several asylum-seekers who harmed themselves in desperation.
Families and vulnerable persons are taken from “transit zones” to open reception centres inside the country where they face a different set of challenges. They languish in conditions which are often unsuitable for long-term accommodation, and where information on and assistance with asylum applications are lacking and support to access essential services is minimal. These centres barely provide education, activities for children and healthcare. The lack of translators and a lengthy, complex asylum process create often insurmountable obstacles to their asylum cases.
Hungary is, on multiple counts, in flagrant breach of international human rights and refugee law and EU directives on asylum procedures, reception conditions, and the Dublin regulation. The Hungarian authorities continue to intentionally undermine any agreement that could protect the rights of refugees and migrants to safely and legally arrive in the European Union, be treated with dignity, and have a fair and individual opportunity to make their cases heard. This briefing makes the case for the European Commission to take the infringement proceedings it has started against Hungary further and hold Hungary accountable and bring the country’s migration and asylum policies in line with EU and international law obligations.
Aus dem ECRE-Newsletter vom 8.7.2016:
On 5 July 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Hungary, in the case of O.M. v Hungary. O.M., an Iranian national represented by a Hungarian Helsinki Committee lawyer, had fled Iran because of his homosexuality and was detained in Hungary for nearly two months before being recognised as a refugee. The Court unanimously ruled that the asylum seeker’s detention was arbitrary and unjustified, in violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to liberty and security. In particular, the Court found that the Hungarian authorities had failed to take into account the applicant’s vulnerability in the detention facility based on his sexual orientation.
In UNHCR’s view, legislation and related Decrees adopted by Hungary in July and September 2015, and progressively implemented between July 2015 and 31 March 2016, have had the combined effect of limiting and deterring access to asylum in the country. These include, most notably, the following.
(a) the erection of a fence along Hungary’s borders with Serbia and Croatia, accompanied by the introduction of a procedure in which individuals arriving at the border who wish to submit an asylum application in Hungary must do so in special “transit zones” in which the asylum procedure and reception conditions are not in accordance with European Union (EU) and international standards, in particular concerning procedural safeguards, judicial review and freedom of movement. (See Section D below). In addition, the government plans to erect a fence along the Romanian-Hungarian border beginning at the Serbian-Hungarian-Romanian triple border.
(b) the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept to countries on the principal route followed by asylum-seekers to Hungary – namely Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia – without adequate procedural safeguards, and despite the fact that no other EU Member State applies a presumption of safety to those countries 6 and that UNHCR.
(c) the criminalization of irregular entry into Hungary through the border fence, punishable by actual or suspended terms of imprisonment of up to ten years – and/or the imposition of an expulsion border. Prison sentences, at variance with the EU Return Directive, are imposed following fast-tracked trials of questionable fairness, and are not suspended in the event that the concerned individual submits an asylum application. The proper consideration of a defence under Article 31 of the 1951 Convention that the individual had come directly from a territory where his or life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1 of that Convention is thus prevented.
There has also been a reduction of permanent open reception capacity for asylum-seekers through the closure of the centre in Debrecen, which had been the largest open asylum reception centre in the country, at the very time when substantially increased reception capacity for asylum-seekers is needed and the opening of an asylum detention centre in Kiskunhalas. These measures and development should also be considered in the context of the wider use of detention in generally inadequate conditions based on previous laws and practices adopted prior to the period covered by this paper.
In conclusion, UNHCR considers these significant aspects of Hungarian law and practice raise serious concerns as regards compatibility with international and European law, and may be at variance with the country’s international and European obligations.
This fact sheet is devoted to jurisprudence preventing transfers under Regulation 604/2013 (Dublin III Regulation) to Hungary. Its scope is limited to case law from European Union Member States supported by policy and non-governmental material to illustrate the grounds on which the judiciary are suspending transfers to Hungary. In light of the substantial amount of case law on the topic, the note in no way purports to be a fully comprehensive review of Member State practice, nonetheless the jurisprudence included serves as a unique tool for practitioners to consult and use in their own respective litigation. It is to be seen against the backdrop of the Commission’s infringement proceedings against Hungary and the new systematic monitoring process outlined in the European Agenda on Migration, as well as several cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights and an urgent preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union lodged by Debrecen Administrative and Labour Court in the context of asylum law. The note therefore provides a further layer of examination and analysis, one which is jurisprudential in nature and which should be borne in mind when evaluating the adherence of Hungary to European and
international legal obligations.
Human Rights Watch encountered several asylum seekers who said they had been returned to Hungary from Austria, Germany, and Slovakia under the Dublin III Regulation, which allows an EU country to return most asylum seekers to the first EU country to which they arrived. This is despite the lack of meaningful access to asylum under Hungary’s abusive border regime and its routine detention of asylum seekers, including vulnerable people, in poor conditions.
Hungary is detaining vulnerable asylum seekers and migrants under its new border regime for weeks at a time, sometimes in poor conditions, Human Rights Watch said today.
Pregnant women, accompanied and unaccompanied children, and people with disabilities were among those detained for long periods, with women and families with young children in some cases sharing facilities with unrelated men.
Under the new border regime, asylum claims are determined through accelerated procedures, and most are rejected. Rejected asylum seekers and people convicted by Hungarian courts of irregular entry are held in immigration detention indefinitely, pending removal mainly to Serbia, though it has refused in most cases to accept such returns.
Although all three directors claimed they were holding no unaccompanied children, nine unaccompanied young people interviewed told Human Rights Watch that they were under 18 and said they had had either no age assessment or a cursory one.
Detainees in both sections of the Nyirbator detention center said the facilities were infested with bedbugs, and Human Rights Watch researchers observed rashes and bites on detainees in both parts of the facility. Staff said that eradicating the problem would be too costly.
More than 1,000 refugees, most of them from war zones in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, are detained in overcrowded Hungarian prisons or detention facilities. As of 10 November, almost 700 had been sentenced to expulsion by Hungarian courts for crossing the razor-wire fence along its southern borders. More than 200 others are detained, awaiting trial. Around 500 people are in asylum detention, a separate category under Hungarian law. The Serbian government is refusing to accept most deportees from Hungary, in protest against the fence.
As discussed in Chapter III of this report, the retroactive application of the “safe third country” concept on all applicants having transited through Serbia, against the unchanged recommendation of UNHCR not to consider Serbia as a safe third country because of the lack of access to effective protection in that country, also has further implications for the operation of the Dublin Regulation. As the asylum applications of Dublin returnees may be declared inadmissible on that basis upon return in Hungary, this presents a real risk of indirect refoulement. Consequently, EU Member States must refrain from effecting transfers to Hungary, as recommended in this report.
This case relates to a Ukrainian national and her two young children, who claimed asylum in the Netherlands in April 2015. This was rejected as they had previously applied for asylum in Hungary in January 2015, and the Hungarian authorities had accepted their responsibility to process the claim pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation. The Hague District Court had granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the applicants’ removal and now considered the merits of her appeal.
With regard to the applicant’s argument that the amendments to Hungarian law of 1 August 2015 contained serious procedural shortcomings, and exposed her and her children to the risk of detention the Court considered the Hungarian asylum law was not in violation of European law. In any event, she had an effective remedy to complain to a Hungarian Court and if necessary, to lodge a complaint before the CJEU or ECtHR.
Citing Tarakhel v. Switzerland the Court emphasised the need for special protection of asylum seekers, in particular families with children, whose reception conditions must be adapted to their specific needs. It referred to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee Information Note dated 7 August 2015 which indicated that recent developments in Hungary, including the significant increase in asylum seekers to Hungary, meant that its asylum system could not deal with vulnerability, there was no screening mechanism to identify those with special needs, and the reception system was overcrowded and unhygienic. As such, there was a real risk of many Dublin transferees to Hungary being accommodated in unacceptable conditions, similar to the reception situation in Italy as discussed in Tarakhel. Given that the applicant, a single mother with young children was particularly vulnerable, guarantees should be requested from the Hungarian authorities in line with Tarakhel to avoid the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. As the Dutch authorities failed to do so, its decision to transfer the applicants to Hungary was set aside.
The applicant in this case is a national of Afghanistan who travelled via Iran, Turkey, Greece and Hungary before claiming asylum in the Netherlands. His asylum claim was dismissed by the Secretary of State of Security and Justice and a decision was made to transfer him to Hungary pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation.
Based on the information before it, the Hague District Court considered that upon transfer to Hungary the applicant’s asylum claim would be considered under the new asylum legislation that entered into force on 1 August 2015. The Court referred extensively to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee Information Note of 7 August which set out a number of criticisms of the new Hungarian asylum law. It considered that the contents of this report had not been refuted by the Secretary of State. It concluded that the Hungarian asylum procedure, in view of the designation of Serbia as a safe third country, did not meet the requirements of the ECtHR, as there was no effective remedy against negative first instance decisions, no real access to professional legal assistance, interpreters are not available and the short deadlines and set by the Hungarian asylum procedure prevented applicants from preparing a proper defence. It concluded that the procedure did not meet the minimum requirements as set out in Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.
In conclusion, transfer of the applicant to Hungary would amount to a real risk of violation of Article 3 ECHR as there were systemic deficiencies in the new asylum procedure that the minimum standards as set out in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece were not met. The decision was set aside and the Secretary of State is now obliged to make a new decision taking into consideration this ruling.
Aktueller Bericht von Amnesty International zu Ungarn. Titel des Berichts: Fenced Out – Hungary’s Violations Of The Rights Of Refugees And Migrants.