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.
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.
Politisch und medial steht das Thema Flüchtlinge in Europa weit oben auf der Agenda. In der Diskussion um die Verteilung von Flüchtlingen innerhalb der Europäischen Union stehen aber oftmals nationalstaatliche Interessen und Zahlen im Vordergrund. Leicht vergisst man da, dass diese Menschen meist tragische, persönliche Schicksale und Geschichten erlitten haben. Wie jene Asylsuchenden, die in Malta am Arbeitsstrich ihr Überleben sichern. Von Europa fühlen sie sich im Stich gelassen. „Wirklich interessieren tun sich die wenigsten für uns“, sagt Joseph, ein Flüchtling aus Eritrea im Gespräch mit der APA in Malta. Hoffnungslos überfordert sei die maltesische Regierung, aber wohl auch die gesamte EU, meint der Mittdreißiger. Weil sie vom Staat nur bis zu 300 Euro pro Monat – wenn überhaupt – erhalten, versuchen viele der Flüchtlinge, auf den Straßen Tagesjobs zu ergattern.
[A]nders als das Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf hat die Kammer insbesondere gerade aufgrund der jüngsten vom VG Düsseldorf herangezogenen Erkenntnisse […] nach wie vor erhebliche Bedenken, ob Dublin-Rückkehrern wie dem Antragsteller derzeit eine Rückkehr nach Ungarn zuzumuten ist.
The automatic detention of undocumented migrants for up to 18 months and of asylum seekers for up to 12 months is “in breach of Malta’s international human rights obligations”, human rights experts have warned. In its annual ‘State of the World’s Human Rights’ report, human rights organisation Amnesty International said that Malta’s search and rescue operations at sea, limited at disembarking refugees and migrants in its territory, is too “restrictive”.
In Kooperation mit Pro Asyl und dem Ungarischen Helsinki Komitee beantwortete Bordermonitoring. eu im Oktober 2014 Anfragen des VG Düsseldorf und des VG München. Die Stellungnahmen finden sich hier:
