Firstly, regarding the asylum procedures, the Commission is concerned that there is no possibility to refer to new facts and circumstances in the context of appeals and that Hungary is not automatically suspending decisions in case of appeals – effectively forcing applicants to leave their territory before the time limit for lodging an appeal expires, or before an appeal has been heard. The recast Asylum Procedures Directive establishes common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and sets clear rules on how to apply for asylum. It applies to all applications for international protection made in the territory, including at the border, in the territorial waters or in the transit zones of the Member States.
Secondly, regarding rights to translation and interpretation, the Commission is concerned the Hungarian law on fast-tracked criminal proceedings for irregular border crossings does not respect provisions of the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, which ensures that every suspect or accused person who does not understand the language of the proceedings is provided with a written translation of all essential documents, including any judgment.
Thirdly, on the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, there are concerns as to the fact that under the new Hungarian law dealing with the judicial review of decisions rejecting an asylum application a personal hearing of the applicants is optional. Judicial decisions taken by court secretaries (a sub-judicial level) lacking judicial independence also seem to be in breach of the Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 47 of the Charter.
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.
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.
Aktueller Bericht von Amnesty International zu Ungarn. Titel des Berichts: Fenced Out – Hungary’s Violations Of The Rights Of Refugees And Migrants.
In dieser aktuellen, englischsprachigen Stellungnahme beschreibt und bewertet das Ungarische Helsinki Komitee die Gesetzesverschärfungen in Ungarn, welche zum 1.7.2015 in Kraft getreten sind.
Am 1.8.2015 ist Serbien zum „sicheren Drittstaat“ erklärt worden. Hierzu Amnesty International (30.7.2015):
Following the adoption of an Amendment to the Asylum Law by the National Assembly in June, the Hungarian government issued a decree on 21 July specifying the lists of the “safe countries of origin” and “safe third countries”. They include EU Member States, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Member States of the European Economic Area, states of the USA that have abolished the death penalty, Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In July, the National Assembly adopted another Amendment of the Asylum Law, clarifying that the asylum applications of nationals of designated “safe countries of origin” will be decided in an expedited procedure. The applications of asylum-seekers coming through “safe third countries” will be declared inadmissible. This Amendment will enter into force on 1 August. The blanket refusal of asylum applications submitted by people who travelled through these countries can result in refoulement, the unlawful return of persons who would be at risk of serious human rights violations.
Dazu das Serbien sicherlich kein sicherer Drittstaat ist, sind bereits eine Reihe von Berichten erschienen.
This report does not aim to describe Hungary’s asylum system in detail. Instead, Amnesty International examines aspects of the system, including the detention of asylum-seekers and
refugees. Hungary’s deportation policy is also examined in the context of concerns about refoulement, and in particular, the risk of chain refoulement.
In dem Bericht wird auch auf die Situation in Serbien/Mazedonien eingegangen.
The current measures for beneficiaries of international protection are ineffective in equipping them with the skills and support necessary for integration. Refugees face many problems in practice, notably homelessness; sleeping in certain public places can now lead to criminal sanctions. Around 22 % of all asylum seekers are deprived of their liberty, mostly in asylum detention facilities with very poor living conditions, harsh treatment by guards and lack of access to legal aid or assistance from civil society […].
In 2013, following a sudden and large influx of asylum seekers, Jobbik began to stoke intolerance towards migrants; it announced a protest to demand the removal of the Debrecen reception centre (see also the section on Topics specific to Hungary, Detention of asylum seekers). Asylum seekers then became the target of extremely xenophobic public discourse and social media invoked stereotypes of them bringing infectious diseases into the country, as well as being „lazy”, “uncivilised” and “criminals”. In August 2014, a Jobbik member called for tougher policies towards refugees who put a great financial burden on the country, reduce public safety standards and cause health risks […].
However, beneficiaries of international protection must move out of reception centres within two months of obtaining international protection. While the move away from “camp-based” integration towards a community-based system has generally been welcomed, refugees face problems in practice. It takes several months before they start to receive financial support and this progressively decreases at the end of each six-month period down to 25% of the original amount. Most have no jobs when they leave the reception facilities and do not speak Hungarian […].
As a result, one of the most serious problems faced by refugees is the risk of homelessness. ECRI notes that recent amendments to the Fundamental Law authorise the criminalisation of sleeping in public places; Hungary adopted amendments to the Act on Misdemeanor in 2013 to this effect, despite strong criticism expressed by the UN Special Rapporteurs on extreme poverty and on adequate housing. The new legislation is particularly harsh for refugees, since their financial support is insufficient to rent an apartment and cover subsistence expenses. The UNHCR points out that some beneficiaries of international pro0tection have re-applied for asylum in Germany in order to avoid homelessness, and possible criminal sanctions, in Hungary.
This booklet is the outcome of group sessions held by JRS Malta with Somali women, most of whom are awaiting the outcome of their asylum application. The aim of the JRS project was to make the women aware that they could actually be active agents of change in their own lives, to identify challenges they face as migrants in Malta and to help them to advocate for improved services. This reflects our policy to include an advocacy element in our programs and to advocate not only for but with refugees. The women who contributed to this booklet all had their initial asylum application rejected – a few had received a second rejection on appeal as well – and all were in detention when we started the group sessions. The decision to work with women who had been in detention for a long time was a natural one for JRS to take because we always prioritise people who find themselves in this predicament.
Dieser ausführliche, vom Jesuit Refugee Service auf Malta erstellte Bericht bezieht Entwicklungen bis Februar 2015 mit ein.