1. HUNGARY'S ACTIONS REGARDING REFUGEES
Tamas Dezso Ziegler
HUNGARY'S ACTIONS REGARDING REFUGEES

2. Domestic actions regarding refugees
General context
Identitarian politics and anti- democratic changes: move into (electoral) autocracy
Domestic actions regarding refugees
Legal changes + other actions
Politics

3. General context – refugees in Hungary per month)
„The right to asylum shall be granted...” (Article 18, EU Charter of fundamental rights)

4. Legal actions July
Safe third countries: include countries like Serbia, Bosnia-Hercegovinaa and later, Turkey (after EU- Turkey deal)
Serbia as a safe third country: refugees arriving from the Balkan route can be sent back
- May be contrary to the principle of non- refoulement
- N.S. case (CJEU) and M.S.S. case (ECtHR): may not send refugees back to certain countries (not even to EU members!)
- new case: Ibrahimi and Abasi (High Court, England): refugees may not be sent back to Hungary (talk about safe third countries later)

5. 2015 July
Fence

6. Fence: Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian border + considering Romania
2015 July
Fence: Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian border + considering Romania

7. 2017 Extras ? Human dignity? Inhuman treatment? ECHR?
Electricity in the fence
„Smart fence” (deterrent information in ten languagues)
Double fence
Razor-wire on the fence
Police „hunt” for refugees: some people die in the river Tisza
? Human dignity? Inhuman treatment? ECHR?

8. 2015 July Procedural issues Curtailing deadlines
Denying suspensive effect of any appeal
May hurt Article 6 and 7 ECHR: due process + right to a fair trial + right to effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR)
later: abolish refugee camps (Bicske, Debrecen): horrible conditions
May hurt human dignity (Article 3 ECHR)

9. 2015 September – Major amendments
Ten laws were amended
Transit zones at the southern border
2017: New border procedure: automatic detention!!!
Refugees are kept in tents and containers: freezes
Earlier, several countries (e.g. Greece and Hungary) had to change their policies, because automatic detention is contrary to Strasbourg law (see Lokpo et Touré v. Hungary, Al-Tayyar Abdelhakim v. Hungary, Nabil and Others v. Hungary)
New case: Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary: hurts Article 4 and 5 ECHR: (right to liberty and security) + expulsion to Serbia: no guarantees for protection
But! Mirza case (CJEU): refugee may be sent back to Hungary (and probably on, to Serbia): CJEU and Strasbourg are split!

10. 2015 September – More defense
Articles 352 A, B and C were introduced in the Criminal Code (Act C. of 2012).
„A maximum of three years of imprisonment threatens all who cross the fence illegally (Article 352A).
The damaging of the fence is a separate crime under Article 352 B, punishable with a maximum of five years of imprisonment...
Even obstructing the construction of the fence was made a separate crime (Article 352 C). Absurdly, crossing at sections where no fence has been erected remains a minor offence, so whoever managed to cross the fence from Croatia before the completion of that section on 16 October did not face penalties under the Criminal Code.”
Boldizsár Nagy (see literature) here
Article 31 Geneve Convention: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
The Adimi dilemma: what does „directly” mean?

11. Procedures against refugees
Röszke protests

12. Procedures against refugees
Röszke protests

13. Procedures against refugees
Petra László „journalist”

14. Procedures against refugees
Röszke protests
Institutionalised racism: Ahmed H.: ten years in prison for „terrorism” (threw a bottle at police officers)
Others also receive harsh punishment, even though they were not aggressive (eg. 2 years 4 months in prison)
Person in a wheelchair also gets punishment

15. Homophobic + racist preliminary question?
CJEU (C-473/16 F):
Nigerian national, who had submitted an application for international protection based on sexual orientation in Hungary.
‚Should Article 4 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted in light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as not precluding that, when LGBTI’s apply for international protection, advice by a psychologist, based on projective personality tests, is taken into account when assessing the application for asylum, even if the opinion was drawn up without any questions asked by (?) the applicant about his sexual habits and without being subjected to a physical examination?’
How to prove someone is homosexual?

16. The procedure regarding the annulement of the quota system (C-647/15 against Council Decision 2015/1601)
Arguments:
No EU competency (Article 78(3))
Quota is not an interim measure
Amendment of Commission proposal was not approved by every member in the Council
Was not sent to the National Parliament
Council amended the proposal, but no consultation was held
Proposal was not available in all languages of the EU
Allocation of refugees is against the Geneve Convention and the text of the decision is not clear enough
Regulation hurts the „proportionality and necessity” principle
The regulation hurts the principle of subsidiarity

17. EU answers
Infringement procedure because of the quota system (also against Chech Republic and Poland)
EU Parliament: resolutions
+ EP calls for application of Article 7 procedure
„G. whereas 91,54 % of asylum applications in 2016 were rejected; whereas since new laws and procedures adopted in Hungary in the field of asylum have forced all asylum seekers to enter Hungary through a transit zone on Hungarian territory that allows access to a limited number of people per day, e.g. 10 at the moment; whereas NGOs have repeatedly reported that migrants at Hungary’s borders are being summarily forced back to Serbia, in some cases with cruel and violent treatment, without consideration of their claims for protection; whereas the Hungarian Government has failed to fulfil its obligations to relocate asylum seekers in accordance with EU law;
H.  whereas the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe has declared that ‘due to sweeping changes introduced in Hungary in asylum law and practice over recent months, asylum seekers returned there run a considerable risk of being subject to human rights violations’ in relation to the written observations he submitted on 17 December 2016 to the European Court of Human Rights regarding two complaints against Austria concerning the transfer of applicants from Austria to Hungary under the Dublin III Regulation;
I.  whereas 11 refugees, referred to as the ‘Röszke 11’, present on 16 September 2016, the day after Hungary closed its border with Serbia, have been charged with committing an act of terror and sentenced to prison, including Ahmed H., a Syrian resident in Cyprus sentenced to 10 years in prison in an unfair trial in November on the sole grounds of using a megaphone to ease tensions and of throwing three objects at the border police”

18. Hungary: referendum
Do you agree that the European Union should be able to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary without the consent of parliament?
„EU wants to make foreigners settle in Hungary”
The lie in the question: the EU does not have right to settle „foreigners” in Hungary

19. No real polemy about humanitarian aspects of the case in society
Latest scandal (outside Hungary, Hungarians do not even know about it!!)
71 people died in a van
According to German journalists, authorities knew about human traffickers
No real polemy about humanitarian aspects of the case in society

20. Poster campaign
‚If you come to Hungary, you cannot take away the Hungarians’ job!’

21. Poster campaign
’If you come to Hungary, you have to respect our culture!’

22. Poster campaign
’More than 300 people died because of terror attacks since the start of the crisis concerning the influx of foreigners. ’

23. Poster campaign
’The number of sexual attacks against women got significantly higher after the beginning of the migrant influx..’

24. Poster campaign
’We do not want illegal immigrants’.

25. Poster campaign
’The Paris attack was committed by immigrants.’

26. Political attitide
George Schöpflin’s (MEP) reaction to the frightening masks on the fence.

27. Failed proposal on the seventh amendment of the Constitution
More protection against „immigrants”
Against the quota system
„No foreign folk may be settled in Hungary”
Hungarian Parliament is above the EU in such questions
Two far right parties (Fidesz and Jobbik): dispute on Hungarian citizenship (Fidesz introduced a system earlier, which made available for foreign citizens to receive Hungaran citizenship if they invest in Hungary)
„The real traitors of the nation allow terrorist to enter for money!”

28. Literature
Boldizsar Nagy: Parallel realities: refugees seeking asylum in Europe and Hungary’s reaction (EU Migration Law Blog) realities-refugees-seeking-asylum-in- europe-and-hungarys-reaction/
Boldizsar Nagy: Hungarian Asylum Law and Policy in 2015–2016: Securitization Instead of Loyal Cooperation`published in German Law Journal: 30ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/58345a17f5e2 313c9c85372d/ /07+PDF_ Vol_17_No_06_Nagy+Final.pdf