Tamas Dezso Ziegler

1. TamasDezso Ziegler HUNGARY'S ACTIONS REGARDING REFUGEES

2. General context Identitarianpolitics and anti-democraticchanges: moveinto (electoral) autocracy Domesticactionsregardingrefugees Legal changes + other actions Politics

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

4. Legal actions - 2015 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. 2015 July Fence: Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian border + considering Romania

7. 2017 Extras Electricityinthefence „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 Proceduralissues Curtailingdeadlines 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 Tenlawswereamended Transitzonesatthesouthernborder 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 inthe 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 (seeliterature) here Article 31 Geneve Convention: The ContractingStatesshall not impose penalties, onaccountof their illegal entryor presence, on refugeeswho, coming directlyfrom a territorywhere theirlife orfreedomwas threatened inthe sense ofArticle 1, enter orarepresentin their territorywithout authorization,providedtheypresentthemselves without delay to theauthoritiesand showgood cause for theirillegal entryorpresence. The Adimi dilemma: what does „directly” mean?

11. Proceduresagainstrefugees Röszke protests

12. Proceduresagainstrefugees Röszke protests

13. Proceduresagainstrefugees Petra László „journalist”

14. Proceduresagainstrefugees Röszke protests Institutionalisedracism: Ahmed H.: tenyearsinprisonfor „terrorism” (threw a bottleatpoliceofficers) Othersalsoreceiveharshpunishment, eventhoughtheywerenotaggressive (eg. 2 years 4 monthsinprison) Personin a wheelchairalsogetspunishment

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. ‚ShouldArticle 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 2015 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 2016 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 wantstomakeforeignerssettlein Hungary” The lie in the question: the EU does not have right to settle „foreigners” in Hungary

19. 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. Postercampaign ‚If you come to Hungary, you cannot take away the Hungarians’ job!’

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

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

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

24. Postercampaign ’We do not want illegal immigrants’.

25. Postercampaign ’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)http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/parallel-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: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/58345a17f5e2313c9c85372d/1479825944951/07+PDF_Vol_17_No_06_Nagy+Final.pdf