border Hungary
Photo: Gergely Botár/kormany.hu

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Thursday ruled that keeping asylum seekers in the transit zone on the Hungarian-Serbian border constitutes “detention”.

“The placing of asylum seekers or third-country nationals who are the subject of a return decision in the Röszke transit zone at the Serbian Hungarian border must be classified as ‘detention’,” the CJEU said.

The court acknowledged that under EU directives, member states may detain applicants for international protection, but said “that detention may not under any circumstances exceed four weeks from the date on which the application was lodged”.

The ruling was issued in the case involving two Afghan and two Iranian nationals, who had been assigned the Röszke transit zone as temporary accommodation in 2018 and 2019 and had been staying there since.

Hungarian authorities had previously rejected the complainants’ asylum requests, saying they had entered the country from Serbia, a safe transit country. After Serbia refused to readmit them into its territory, the Hungarian authorities expelled the asylum seekers back to their homelands. Until then, the Röszke transit zone was assigned as temporary accommodation. The asylum seekers then brought a lawsuit to the Szeged court of labour and administration, saying their housing there constituted unlawful detention and asking for their asylum requests to be re-examined.

The CJEU ruling said, “the conditions prevailing in the Röszke transit zone amount to a deprivation of liberty, inter alia because the persons concerned cannot lawfully leave that zone of their own free will in any direction whatsoever.”

The transit zone is only open towards Serbia, and the complainants would violate Serbian law by exiting that way, it said.

The CJEU said in its ruling that EU directives on asylum “preclude an applicant for international protection or a third-country national who is the subject of a return decision from being detained without the prior adoption of a reasoned decision ordering that detention and without the need for and proportionality of such a measure having been examined”.

Source: MTI

7 comments
  1. Another wrong decision from the Court.
    As I understand it these people did not pass the requirements to be accepted in Hungary as asylum seekers. Therefore they must leave.
    It looks like these people broke the law in Serbia so Serbia has refused to let them back in.

    Both Hungarian and Serbian govts acted with their rules. The asylum seekers did not.

    Anyone who breaks the law must accept the consequences of their decisions.

  2. Send them back to where they came from and if their native country refuses to take them back, give them a parachute and push them out of the airplane or failing that send them to Brussels and let them deal with them. Why does Hungary think things will get better in the E.U.? Time for Hungary, and most of the former Iron curtain nations to say goodbye to the E.U. and Frau Merkel’s Dictates.

  3. As I said back in April, “Leave it to the fools at CJEU to reach such an insane decision.”

    The so-called “asylum seekers” – two from Afghanistan and two from Iran – had their initial claims for asylum assessed by the Hungarian Government and ALL FOUR were rejected.

    That should have been the END of that matter.

    However, these four individuals (and I’m being EXCEPTIONALLY POLITE in my description of them !) refused to leave.

    No doubt supported by some ‘bleeding heart’ liberals / so-called N.G.O.s, they had the AUDACITY to sue the Hungarian Government.

    “It isn’t fair” they proclaimed to a court in Szeged. “We want our cases ‘re-examined’ so we can enter Hungary !!”

    Guess what, their cases WERE re-examined and the same conclusions reached.

    THESE FOUR INDIVIDUALS DO NOT QUALIFY FOR ASYLUM IN HUNGARY.

    Hungary was far too generous in their initial treatment of these people and instead of kicking them out of the Röske Transit Zone after their asylum requests were refused, they were allowed to stay for two years.

    Well, the time has come for these individuals to be REMOVED from Hungarian soil.

    One way or another, this RIDICULOUS SITUATION must end.

  4. If the attitude expressed here by some commentators above had been applied by the UK, along with other countries, in the aftermath of and build up to, 1956 when many Hungarians fled Hungary, the comments might have some sympathy from other nationalities. The expression is that ‘you cannot have your cake and eat it’.

  5. The lack of knowledge / insight exhibited about the 1956 Hungarian Revolution – and its aftermath – by Paulus in his comments is truly amazing.

    Before making any statements for which he is so obviously UNQUALIFIED, Paulus should (at the very least) first consult :

    1. “HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION OF 1956” (Wikipedia) ;

    2. “No, the Hungarian Refugees of 1956 are not the same as today’s migrants” (“ABOUT HUNGARY”, October 11, 2016 – the 60th Anniversary of Hungarian Revolution).

    Only AFTER doing such research – and acknowledging same (whether he agrees with what is written or not) -will Paulus be in any position to ‘deliver his sermon from high’.

    Until then, Paulus can only be viewed as being a ‘pribék’ for George Soros / so-called ‘liberals’ within the E.U. and ANY comments uttered by him should be treated as nothing more than the total rubbish of a complete ignoramus.

  6. Why some member of CJ try to get from Brussel ti Afghanistan without passport and the take to the court Afghan government because they are not letting him in

  7. LAJOS KOSSUTH

    The word immigrant. You need to understand and then realize the difference between Hungarian or Syrian or refugee and immigrant theory. In just a short time, nearly a million Hungarians migrated from Hungary alone. Just because of better conditions. But about George Soros …
    …. If it weren’t for him, your prime minister would now be at home and maybe unemployed … it was his money that he continued his education outside of Hungary. I was in Budapest last year, a beautiful city. but not Beautiful thought

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.