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.
Archiv der Kategorie: Status im Zielstaat
BBC: Migrant crisis – Hungarian jails crowded by ‚illegal‘ refugees
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.
VG Aachen 5. Kammer / Az.: 5 L 942 / 15.A / Ungarn
Die sich damit stellende Frage, ob der Antragsteller sich auf systemische Schwachstellen des Asylverfahrens und der Aufnahmebedingungen für Antragsteller in Ungarn berufen kann, kann nach der Rechtsprechung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen […], der die Kammer sich anschließt, indes derzeit u.a. angesichts der allgemeinkundigen Defizite bei der Bereitstellung ausreichender Unterbringungskapazitäten für Flüchtlinge und wegen der Änderung der ungarischen Asylgesetze im Rahmen eines vorläufigen Rechtsschutzverfahrens nicht abschließend beurteilt werden, sondern muss vielmehr einer eingehend Prüfung im Hauptsachverfahren vorbehalten bleiben.
Ungarische Regierung: „Wir werden keinen einzigen illegalen Migranten zurücknehmen“
Offizielle Webseite der ungarischen Regierung:
Government rejects quota system
Therefore Hungary will not take back a single expelled illegal migrant, the Minister heading the Prime Minister’s Office stated. János Lázár said: Western-European countries notified Hungary of the expulsion of some 40,000 people; however, they did not enter the European Union at Hungary but at Greece, and consequently, the individuals concerned must be sent back there. He added: the southern security border closure is working, and successfully prevents illegal border crossing.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht 1. Senat / Az.: 1 B 41.15 / Ungarn
1. Vor dem 20. Juli 2015 gestellte Asylanträge dürfen aufgrund der Übergangsregelung in Art. 51 Unterabsatz 1 der Richtlinie 2013/32/EU nicht allein deshalb als unzulässig behandelt werden, weil dem Antragsteller in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat bereits subsidiärer Schutz gewährt worden ist.
2. Abschiebungsanordnung und Abschiebungsandrohung stellen keine teilidentische Vollstreckungsmaßnahmen dar; die Ersetzung einer(rechtswidrigen) Abschiebungsanordnung durch eine Abschiebungsandrohung führt daher zur vollständigen Erledigung der Abschiebungsanordnung.
Aida Bericht zu Ungarn
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.
The Hague District Court (Niederlande) / Ungarn
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.
Amnesty-Bericht zu Ungarn
Aktueller Bericht von Amnesty International zu Ungarn. Titel des Berichts: Fenced Out – Hungary’s Violations Of The Rights Of Refugees And Migrants.
VG Bayreuth 3. Kammer / Az.: B 3 S 15.50241
Die nach § 77 Abs. 1 Satz 1 AsylVfG maßgebliche Sach- und Rechtslage bei der im Eilverfahren nur möglichen und gebotenen summarischen Prüfung lässt angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklungen und jüngsten Entscheidungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (z.B. zeitweilige Öffnung der Grenzen für Flüchtlinge in Ungarn bzw. faktische Aussetzung des Dublin-Verfahrens für Syrer) keine eindeutigen Schlussfolgerungen zu. Derzeit lässt sich nicht einschätzen, inwieweit diese Entscheidungen Rückschlüsse auf die bestehenden Prüfungsmaßstäbe im Dublin-Verfahren zulassen und ob noch eindeutige Entscheidungsmaßstäbe auch im Sinne des Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes aller Asylbewerber hinsichtlich einer beabsichtigten Rückführung nach Ungarn bestehen.
VG Chemnitz 4. Kammer / Az.: 4 L 1104/15.A / Ungarn
Im Rahmen der im hiesigen Verfahren vorzunehmenden summarischen Prüfung vermag das Gericht zwar nicht abschließend zu beurteilen, ob und inwieweit in Ungarn derartige systemische Schwachstellen bestehen, dass die Überstellung von Asylbewerbern gemäß Art. 3 Abs. 2 Dublin III-VO als unmöglich angesehen muss. Gleichwohl kann bei der Prüfung des Suspensivinteresses des Antragstellers nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben, dass die Frage, ob Asylbewerber tatsächlich Gefahr laufen, einer unmenschlichen oder erniedriegenden Behandlung im Sinne von Art. 4 Charta der Grundrechte de Europäischen Union ausgesetzt zu werden, in der erstinstanzlichen verwaltungsgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung derzeit gegensätzlich beurteilt wird und auch innerhalb des Freistaats Sachsen keine einheitliche Linie zu erkennen ist […]. Unter Berücksichtigung einschlägiger Medienberichte und sonstiger (seriöser) Erkenntnisquellen wurde immer wieder zurückgestellt und die aufschiebende Wirkung im Sinne des § 80 Abs. 5 VwGO angeordnet […]. Da die abschließende Klärung des Problems auch im Hinblick auf den Antragsteller im Rahmen des Eilrechtsverfahrens nicht zu erreichen ist, sollte sie nach Auffassung des Gerichts dem Hauptsacheverfahren vorbehalten bleiben und von einer Rückführung nach Ungarn jedenfalls bis zum rechtskräftigen Abschluss des Hauptsacheverfahrens vorläufig abgesehen werden.