Languages: de en fr hu

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-05/cp200060en.pdf

Court of Justice of the European Union 

PRESS RELEASE No 60/20

Luxembourg, 14 May 2020
Judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU FMS and Others v Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság

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’

If, following judicial review of the lawfulness of such detention, it is established that the persons concerned have been detained for no valid reason, the court hearing the case must release them with immediate effect

In the judgment in Országos Idegenrendézeti Żigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság (C924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU), delivered on 14 May 2020 in the context of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, the Grand Chamber of the Court ruled on a number of questions relating to the interpretation of Directives 2008/1151 (‘the “Return” Directive’), 2013/322 (‘the “Procedures” Directive’) and Directive 2013/33 3 (‘the “Reception” Directive’), in relation to the Hungarian legislation on the right to asylum and the return of illegally staying third-country nationals.
In the present case, Afghan nationals (Case C-924/19 PPU) and Iranian nationals (Case C-925/19 PPU), who arrived in Hungary via Serbia, lodged applications for asylum from the Röszke transit zone, on the Serbian-Hungarian border. Pursuant to Hungarian law, those applications were dismissed as inadmissible and decisions requiring the applicants to return to Serbia were adopted. However, Serbia refused to readmit the persons concerned into its territory, on the ground that the conditions set out in the Agreement on readmission concluded with the EU4 were not met. Following that decision of Serbia, the Hungarian authorities did not examine the substance of the applications referred to above, but amended the country of destination mentioned in the initial return decisions, replacing it with the respective country of origin of the persons concerned. Those persons then lodged objections against the amending decisions which were rejected. Although no provision is made for such a remedy under Hungarian law, the applicants brought an action before a Hungarian court for annulment of the decisions rejecting their objections to those amending decisions and to have the asylum authority ordered to conduct a new asylum procedure. They also brought actions for failure to act relating to their detention and continuing presence in the Röszke transit zone. They were first obliged to stay in the sector of that transit zone reserved for applicants for asylum before being required, several months later, to stay in the sector of that zone that is reserved for third-country nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected, the sector which they are currently in.
In 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’
If, following judicial review of the lawfulness of such detention, it is established that the persons concerned have been detained for no valid reason, the court hearing the case must release them with immediate effect
In the judgment in Országos Idegenrendézeti Żigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság (C924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU), delivered on 14 May 2020 in the context of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, the Grand Chamber of the Court ruled on a number of questions relating to the interpretation of Directives 2008/1151 (‘the “Return” Directive’), 2013/322 (‘the “Procedures” Directive’) and Directive 2013/33 3 (‘the “Reception” Directive’), in relation to the Hungarian legislation on the right to asylum and the return of illegally staying third-country nationals.

In the present case, Afghan nationals (Case C-924/19 PPU) and Iranian nationals (Case C-925/19 PPU), who arrived in Hungary via Serbia, lodged applications for asylum from the Röszke transit zone, on the Serbian-Hungarian border. Pursuant to Hungarian law, those applications were dismissed as inadmissible and decisions requiring the applicants to return to Serbia were adopted. However, Serbia refused to readmit the persons concerned into its territory, on the ground that the conditions set out in the Agreement on readmission concluded with the EU4 were not met. Following that decision of Serbia, the Hungarian authorities did not examine the substance of the applications referred to above, but amended the country of destination mentioned in the initial return decisions, replacing it with the respective country of origin of the persons concerned. Those persons then lodged objections against the amending decisions which were rejected. Although no provision is made for such a remedy under Hungarian law, the applicants brought an action before a Hungarian court for annulment of the decisions rejecting their objections to those amending decisions and to have the asylum authority ordered to conduct a new asylum procedure. They also brought actions for failure to act relating to their detention and continuing presence in the Röszke transit zone. They were first obliged to stay in the sector of that transit zone reserved for applicants for asylum before being required, several months later, to stay in the sector of that zone that is reserved for third-country nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected, the sector which they are currently in.