The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, on Thursday 22 June, in a new judgment, that Hungary had unduly hindered the possibility of making an asylum application (request for international protection) by making this conditional on the prior submission of a declaration of intent to an embassy located in a third country.
More specifically, the Court ruled on the law adopted by Hungary in 2020, after the emergence of Covid-19, requiring certain third country nationals or stateless persons already in Hungary or arriving at its borders to follow a prior procedure in order to lodge an asylum application.
This regulation, which was challenged by the Commission in July 2021 (see EUROPE 12763/2), requires these asylum seekers to go to the Hungarian embassy in Belgrade or Kyiv to lodge a declaration of intent to apply for protection in person.
After examining that declaration, the Hungarian authorities can decide to grant a travel document for those persons, allowing them to enter the Member State to make such an application.
The Commission considered that by adopting these provisions, Hungary was failing to fulfil its obligations under the directive on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection.
The Court confirmed this opinion. Firstly, it found that these persons fell within the scope of the directive, because “the obligation, laid down by Hungarian law, to go first to the Hungarian embassies in Belgrade or Kyiv does not have the effect that those persons must be considered merely to have lodged an application for diplomatic or territorial asylum with a representation abroad, to which the directive is not applicable”.
The Court also points out that the condition relating to the prior submission of a declaration of intent is not laid down by the directive and is contrary to its objective of ensuring effective, easy and rapid access to the procedure for granting international protection.
Furthermore, this prior declaration requirement cannot be justified by the objective of public health protection and combating the spread of Covid-19. In fact, the obligation to travel to an embassy abroad, potentially exposing third country nationals or stateless persons to the risk of contracting Covid-19, which they could then spread in Hungary, “cannot be regarded as a measure suitable for combating the spread of the pandemic”.
Link to the judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/7mx (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)