HUNGARY:REFUGEES BETWEEN ARREST AND HOMELESSNESS

Report on year-long research up to February 2012

2

PUBLISHERbordermonitoring.eu e.V.

Friedenstr. 10, 81671 Munich

WWW.BORDERMONITORING.EUOFFICE@BORDERMONITORING.EU

Förderverein Pro Asyl e.V

Postbox 16 06 24, 60069 Frankfurt/M.

WWW.PROASYL.DEPROASYL@PROASYL.DE

V.I.S.D.P.Marc Speer

EDITORIAL STAFF Marion Bayer, Karl Kopp

Günter Burkhardt, Marc Speer

COPY EDITORMiriam Leitner

TRANSLATIONBrian McGauran

LAYOUTMatthias Weinzierl

Christian Jakob

TITLE PAGEReception Camp Debrecen 2008

Photo: Marc Speer

In March 2012 this report was first published in German:

http://content.bordermonitoring.eu/bm.eu--ungarn.2012.pdf

I M P R E S S U M

C O N T E N T S

3

FERENC KÖSZEG | The Iron Curtain shifted eastwards

INTRODUCTION | On the creation of this report

SURVEY | Facts and figures

DEFICITS IN THE HUNGARIAN ASYLUM SYSTEM | Why so many refugees leave

Hungary again

DETENTION REGIME | Reasons, duration, locations and conditions

12 REASONS FOR DETENTION

13 DURATION OF ARREST

14 DETENTION LOCATIONS

14 DETENTION CONDITIONS

15 EFFECTS OF THE TOUGHER PRISON CONDITIONS

16 SYSTEMATIC ADMINISTRATION OF SEDATIVES

17 LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

TRAUMATISED | Treatment of mentally affected refugees

MINORS | Age assessment and accommodation capacity

DUBLIN II RETURNEES | Regular arrest

REFOULEMENT | Deportation to Serbia and Ukraine

SOCIAL SITUATION | Life in homelessness

FAMILY REUNIFICATION | Impossibility of subsequent family reunion

ATTACKS | Racism in Hungary

SUMMARY | Legal assessment and demands

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT | A discussion with a young Afghan refugee

LIST OF SOURCES | FOOTNOTES

AUTHORS

04

08

ASYLUM IN HUNGARY 10

DEFICITS 12

12

18

20

23

24

27

32

32

EVALUATION 34

34

37

38

45

Born in Budapest in 1939, Ferenc Köszegsurvived National Socialism as a small boyunder a false name in a Budapest convent.During the Hungarian Uprising in 1956 hedistributed pamphlets, was arrested andjailed. From 1963 to 1980 Ferenc Köszegworked an editor in two literary publishinghouses. When in 1986, on the occasion ofthe 30th anniversary of the suppression ofthe Hungarian Uprising, he participated ina public statement by Hungarian, Czech,Slovakian, Polish and East German dissi-dents, his passport was confiscated. It washanded out to him two years later onlyafter he had gone on hunger strike. He wasone of the founders of the European RomaRights Centre and the Hungarian HelsinkiCommittee, helped to initiate the Indepen-dent Legal Aid Service in Hungary, theFund for the Poor and various other insti-tutions. From 1990 to 1998 he was a mem-ber of the Hungarian Parliament. FerencKöszeg, together with other activists, hasdrawn public attention to numerous brea-ches of human rights and to the catastro-phic conditions in the refugee camps andprisons on the Hungarian border toUkraine. For this the PRO ASYL Trust ho-noured him with the Human Rights Awardin 2006.

'When I hear the name 'Hungary' myGerman jerkin feels too tight,' wroteHeinrich Heine, looking back on themonths when the Hungarians, as thelast in Europe, were still fighting forfreedom and the principles of the Marchrevolutions of 1848 against the victoriousreactionaries ('In October 1849'). Yes,again and again there were times whenone could be proud to be a Hungarian.The era after the settlement with Austriawas one of them, when the world's firstnationality law was passed in the Hun-garian Parliament in 1868, securing theright to the use of the mother tongue inschools and local administrations, evenfor non-Hungarian minorities. Or whenthe laws on civil marriage and the equal

rights of the different religions werepassed in the face of stiff church resis-tance (1894-95). 1956 also belongs tothat list of proud years, when the nationstrove to free itself from Soviet dicta-torship. Even in the sphere of refugeeprotection there were honourable pe-riods.

At the beginning of World War IIthousands of Polish refugees fled toHungary and were able in the followingyears, with the tacit help of the Hungariangovernment, to escape to the Westernpowers. In 1989 Hungary was the firstof the Communist countries in Easternand Central Europe to ratify the GenevaConvention on Refugees. The governmentallowed GDR refugees (not without thepermission of the Soviet leadership) totravel on to Austria and offered protectionto some 200,000 people fleeing fromCeausescu's Romania and from Yugos-lavia.

But sometimes (and even frequently)one had to be ashamed of Hungary.After four decades of liberal policiesHungary was the first country in Europeafter the First World War to pass a racelaw: the 'Numerus Clausus Act' (1920)restricted the number of Jewish studentsat the universities. After the Germanoccupation of the country in 1944 morethan half a million Jews were deportedto Auschwitz and other concentrationcamps within two months. Laslo Endre– state secretary in the Interior Ministry

FOREWORD

The Iron Curtain shifted eastwardsA BRIEF PREHISTORY BY FERENC KÖSZEG

4

FERENC KÖSZEG Photo: Archive

– convinced Adolf Eichmann beforehandof its feasibility. 'The administration isrunning as in peacetime, the police areat our service, no resistance is to be ex-pected from Hungarian society', he toldEichmann. The Germans just had to ar-range for sufficient reception capacityand the Hungarian authorities wouldthen dispatch trains full of Jews to theHungarian border. Today, neo-Nazigroups bawling anti-Semitic and anti-Roma hate songs are once again marchingthrough the streets of Hungarian townsand villages.

Despite the promising beginnings,the treatment of asylum seekers is amatter of shame and scandal in the his-tory of the young Hungarian democracy.In the period of turmoil, the stream ofrefugees was still greeted with sympathy.Not only those coming from Romania,most of whom were of Hungarian origin,but also 'Yugoslavians' from Croatia andSerbia were happily accepted. One feltsympathetic towards neighbours whohad suddenly become victims of a sen-seless war. The turning point was in1991, when the new Minister of the In-terior, Peter Boross, remarked that Hun-gary was 'fully occupied', the xenophobiawas caused by the foreigners themselvesand if we wanted to prevent it we shouldallow no more foreigners into the country.The minister, who liked to call himself afriend of the German politicians Stoiberand Schäuble, followed the customarylogic in this regard: no Jews, no anti-Se-

mitism. The minister's statements havecontributed towards Hungary's reputa-tion, backed by surveys, as one of themost xenophobic countries.

Although Hungary had long been amember state of the Geneva Convention,the country only recognised refugeesfrom non-European countries after theasylum law took effect in 1998. The lawitself, which was passed during the periodwhen a Liberal-Socialist government heldpower, allowed the border police to detainasylum seekers in the barracks of theearlier border troops, not to send themon to a preliminary reception centre. Go-vernment leaves, administration stays,as the saying goes. Asylum legislationand practice were traditionally adminis-tered by the Office of Immigration andCitizenship, an authority staffed by former

police and even state security officers,which decided on foreign arrivals, resi-dence, immigration, citizenship and asy-lum. In 1998, with the agreement of thenew right-wing government, but withoutlegal authority, the police and border gu-ards were able to transform the so-called'common accommodation' into aliens' po-lice prisons. At the beginning of the warin Kosovo thousands of refugees werelocked up in the overfilled barracks underinhuman conditions – men, women, evenbabies in one room. 'Tears of Györ' and'Hell at the Austrian-Hungarian border'Austrian, German and Swiss newspaperswrote in 1998.1 'Would you come back toHungary again?' I asked a young asylumseeker from Kosovo in the closed commonaccommodation in Szombathely. 'I'll eventeach my grandchildren never to set footon Hungarian soil', was his reply.

F O R E W O R D

5IN 1956 HUNGARIAN REFUGEES CROSSED THE AUSTRIAN-HUNGARIAN BORDER, SOMETIMES BY BOAT

Photo: UNHCR

In fact, not only the Hungarian aut-horities were responsible for the inhumantreatment of the asylum seekers. 'A hun-dred refugees a day cross the Austrianborder illegally', claimed Austria's am-bassador in Budapest before the Hunga-rian press in December 1996. With theincreasing tension in Kosovo, the numberof people crossing the border grew. Thetransformation of the accommodationinto closed facilities was the result ofAustrian government pressure. When theGreens in the Austrian National Council,referring to the inhuman living conditionsin the Hungarian prisons, protestedagainst the return of asylum seekers toHungary, the Minister of the Interior

Schlögl (SPÖ) replied to the written ques-tion as follows: 'I hold no responsibilityfor the situation in Hungarian receptioncentres.'2 Shortly before, on 27 July 1998,the Interior Ministers of Germany, Austria,France, Italy and Switzerland met in Gas-schurn, Vorarlberg, in Austria. The Germanminister Manfred Kanther did the talking.Refugees from Kosovo were unwanted,he stated. The asylum seekers were to beforcibly repatriated, Hungary was a safethird country, and new reception centreswere to be constructed for the refugeesin Macedonia and North Albania. All fiveministers were agreed on this.3 In Hungary,conscientious objectors and even victimsof Serbian punitive expeditions from Ko-

sovo were classed as economic migrantsand their asylum applications were con-sistently rejected. The Austrian ministerSchlögl expressed exactly the same opinionin the Austrian newspaper 'Der Standard'.A few days after the start of the bom-bardment of Serbia, however, all the Ko-sovo refugees in Hungary were released:it became clear to the Ministry of the In-terior that it was absolutely absurd tokeep Kosovo Albanians in prison whilethe NATO allies were fighting for theirfreedom. The freed prisoners fled imme-diately to Austria and Germany. In thisway Manfred Kanther's plan also failed:war refugees could not be returned enmasse.4

6

NEW ARRIVALS IN THE CAMP AT TRAISKIRCHEN, 1956. WITHIN THREE MONTHS 200,000 HUNGARIANS FLED TO AUSTRIA AND YUGOSLAVIA. Photo: UNHCR

In May 2004, Hungary became amember of the European Union. At thetime of entry the EU supported the mo-dernisation of border protection in Eas-tern and Southern Hungary, i.e. at thefuture external border of the Schengenarea, to the tune of €167.8 m. The 'com-mon accommodation' in Nyírbátor wasturned into a high security prison. InJanuary 2004, the commander of theborder police forces in north-east Hun-gary, a brigadier, praised the excellentcollaboration with the Ukrainian borderpolice. In 2003, 141 citizens of thirdstates, among them Afghans, Iraqis andKurds from Turkey, were returned toUkraine in summary proceedings.5 Thisresulted in the number of asylum seekersfalling from 6,400 to 2,400 from 2002to 2003. As a consequence of the rein-forcement of the border police and thedeportations the migration route shiftednorth. Contrary to pan-European ten-dencies, the number of asylum applicantsin Poland and Slovakia increased. In2004 it reached its highest level in Slo-vakia, with 11,350 applications. However,asylum was not granted there to anyone,as people fled on as soon as possible toAustria. This possibility disappeared onSlovakia's entry into the EU. In 2005the number of asylum seekers sank inSlovakia to 3,459. The explanation issimple: the refugees were returned atonce to Ukraine without being given theopportunity to apply for asylum.

The deportees from Hungary and Slo-vakia ended up in a camp in Pawschino,near Mukatschewo. With the support ofthe UNHCR office in Kiev I was able tovisit the camp in the middle of a forest,on one occasion with the anthropologistStephan Dünnwald. 'The Slovakian policebeat us up, then the Ukrainian borderpolice did the same and robbed us of ourwatches and money', many prisonersclaimed. At the time of our visit in 2006there was no electric power. Disputesover drinking water were the order ofthe day, as water was brought to thecamp in tankers. I once again saw what Ihad often experienced between 1988 and2004 in Györ, Szombathely, Kiskunhalasand Nyírbátor, only in an even morebrutal form. At that time the western

border of Hungary was the border to theEU. In 2004 the Ukrainian and Serbianborders became the external EU borders.6

In 2006 the Pawschino camp was closeddown. Despite reports from HumanRights Watch, Amnesty International orthe European Committee for the Pre-vention of Torture and Inhumane or De-grading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)7

about the inhuman treatment of asylumseekers in Ukraine and the corrupt asylumprocess, a number of new camps wereopened with EU support in 2008. Theprison in Lutsk lies some 45 km fromthe city. In 2011 the period of imprison-ment was even increased from 6 monthsto one year. Yes, the iron curtain aroundFortress Europe was shifted several hun-dred kilometres eastwards and the hy-pocrisy moved with it.

Shortly after Hungary's entry intothe EU Dr Zsuzsanna Végh, director-ge-neral of the Office of Immigration andCitizenship, announced at a press con-ference that a stream of refugees toHungary was expected. This predictioncontradicted the Office's own publiclyaccessible statistical data. The prognosisrather reflected the fears in the Officethat in future, asylum seekers fleeingfrom Hungary would be returned toHungary within the framework of theDublin II procedure, for in spite of theprison accommodation, between 1999and 2007 some 52% of all applicants,almost 25,000 asylum seekers, disap-peared in the first few weeks of the pro-cedure, very soon after registration. Wit-hout the collaboration of the peopletraffickers, the asylum system in Hungarywould have collapsed within a few weeks.8

Not long ago Austrian courts and theEuropean Court of Human Rights decidedthat asylum seekers in the Dublin II pro-cedure could not automatically be de-ported to Hungary. The authors of thisreport welcome this decision. One shouldnot, however, forget that actually theaim of Hungarian asylum policy is torid the country of refugees. The only ef-fective means is therefore to put theHungarian authorities under pressureby threatening withdrawal of EU financialsupport so as to guarantee humane living

conditions, a decent asylum process andconcrete integration opportunities. Forthis to happen, however, the EuropeanUnion itself has to take its own moralsand the principles of international refugeeprotection norms seriously.

Budapest, 23 January 2012

FERENC KÖSZEG

Honorary Chairman of the

Helsinki Committee

F O R E W O R D

7

This report is based (in addition to theevaluation of written sources9) above allon reports by refugees10 we met duringvarious research trips in the period fromDecember 2010 to December 2011 inBudapest, Debrecen, Bicske, Fót and Ba-lassagyarmat.11 Further reports were ob-tained from people who had fled on fromHungary and were (or are) threatenedwith deportation to Hungary. We metmost of them in Germany, but we alsohave reports from refugees whose flightled them to Sweden, Holland, Austriaand France. In part we conducted indivi-dual interviews, but frequently also dis-cussions with groups of refugees. We didnot concentrate on quantitative data col-lection, but rather on intensive discussi-ons over a longer period at variouslocations – mainly with refugees fromAfghanistan and Somalia.

For reasons of guaranteed anonymity forthose interviewed, anonymised initialsare used in this report. The transcripti-ons of the audio recordings or the notesmade of the interviews are in the handsof the authors.

The group interviews and discussionshad, besides the simple collection ofdata, a special significance: in the courseof these talks, debates arose on the fun-damental elements of European migra-tion and integration policies. Therefugees spoke of the effects of these po-licies and made an appeal for the politicalchanges required. The recommendationsin the last chapter are the result of theirreports and suggestions.

Imprisonment plays an important role inthe assessment of the realities of life forasylum seekers. We have not seen theprisons in Hungary from the inside. Offi-cial delegations are often confrontedwith the problem that the authorities re-sponsible try to present themselves inthe best possible light and put pressureon the prisoners beforehand not to men-tion negative aspects of their imprison-ment. For this reason qualitativeinterviews with former inmates wereheld for our research under conditionspermitting free expression. Theknowledge gained here was comparedwith the reports produced by other orga-nisations or delegations, especially theHungarian Helsinki Committee12, which(as recently as December 2011) paintedan alarming picture of the prison condi-tions for refugees in Hungary.

This report has two gaps – it would benecessary to fill them in later publicati-ons: on the one hand, interviews withwomen are the exception. This is mainlydue to the fact that refugees in Hungaryare predominantly men. However, thequestion of female migration has specialrelevance, as fleeing women are in a par-ticularly vulnerable situation. The home-less Somali women we spoke to inBudapest placed special emphasis on thisaspect.

Apart from a box on page 32, the reportdoes not concern itself with the specificpredicament of one of the largest refugeegroups in Hungary, the Roma from otherEast-European countries. As a conse-

quence of the increasing anti-Roma po-grom atmosphere (for example, in Bul-garia, the Czech Republic and Romania),Roma are also the victims of intensive di-scrimination, hate and violence. Thisform of persecution does not lead, howe-ver, to guarantees of international pro-tection in the other EU member states;nor does the EU in general seem to beable to confront breaches of humanrights effectively in other areas. Thequestion of how to manage European re-fugee movements goes far beyond therefugee situation in Hungary and theissue of inner-European deportation,and calls for a special debate.

Some of the refugees we met in Hungarywe had previously encountered: inGreece or Ukraine on their way to theEuropean countries where they hopedfor protection and a safe place to stay.Contacts also exist to Hungary via theBorder Monitoring Project Ukraine(BMPU)13. In Greece an 'Infomobile'14

has regularly travelled since summer2010 to locations important for thosefleeing through Europe. From these con-tacts the trust has developed that is nee-ded when such personal and oftenpainful experiences are spoken of.

q I N T R O D U C T I O N

INTRODUCTION

On the creation of this reportGENERAL FRAMEWORK, GAPS AND METHODS

8

O N T H E C R E A T I O N O F T H I S R E P O R T

9

MOST REFUGEES FLEE ONWARDS FROM HUNGARY TO OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. Photo: Marily Stroux

In Hungary there are some 1,800 re-cognised refugees in terms of the GenevaConvention (mainly from Iraq, Afgha-nistan, Somalia and former Yugoslavia)and about 3,000 persons who were gran-ted subsidiary protection. The numberof registered asylum applications hasfluctuated greatly in the last few years.In 2009, for example, (the year with thehighest figures so far) 4,672 initial ap-plications were noted. However, in 2010there was a huge slump to only 2,104applications. Beside Kosovo and Serbia,Afghanistan is the country of origin ofmost refugees. 15

For many refugees and migrants Hun-gary is a transit country on the route toCentral and Northern Europe. Even whencrossing the border (coming from theeast through Ukraine and from the southfrom Greece via Serbia) the risk of illegaldeportation (breach of the ban on re-foulement16) is high: asylum applicationsare often simply ignored by the Hungarianborder police and those affected are ledback to the neighbouring states withinhours. From Page 24, in a special chapter,a more detailed account of systematicrefoulement is made.

Newly arrived asylum seekers are, asa rule, first interned in a so-called 'scree-ning centre' in Békéscaba to check onthe responsibility of another state withinthe framework of the Dublin II Regula-tion17. The camp in Békéscaba is a closedfacility; the internees confined there maynot leave the camp. Békéscaba, unlikethe detention camps for refugees (Buda-pest Airport, Nyírbátor, Kiskunhalas and

Györ), is run by the Office of Immigrationand Nationality (OIN),18 not by the borderpolice. Mostly families with childrencome there, as well as refugees, e.g. So-malis, who have better chances of reco-gnition than others. They usually comedirectly to Békéscaba after a few days ata police station. They remain there untilit has been clarified whether, accordingto the Dublin II procedure, another coun-try is possibly responsible for checkingtheir asylum application.

In four separate detention camps forrefugees19 in Budapest (27 detention pla-ces at the airport), Nyírbátor (276 places),Kiskunhalas (138 places) and Györ (50places), refugees are detained who havecrossed the Hungarian border withoutvalid residence permits for Hungary,whose asylum application has been re-jected or who, as so-called Dublin retur-nees, have been deported from other Eu-ropean countries and have landed atBudapest Airport. In addition, accordingto the Helsinki Committee a new deten-tion centre is being planned on the siteof the reception centre in Debrecen. Theinternment period lasts up to 12 months.

If Hungary's responsibility for theasylum process is established, as a ruleaccommodation is arranged in the (open)camp in Debrecen. Unaccompanied mi-nors are to be accommodated in a chil-dren's home in Fót – but only if theylodge an asylum application. In manycases, however, minors who are registered,merely on appearances, to be adults, endup either in prison or on the street.

Recognised refugees and persons withthe right to subsidiary protection are ac-commodated for a maximu of six months(extendable in severe cases by a furthersix months) in a camp in Bicske. If thisis full, they are accommodated in the re-ception centre in Debrecen.

Since the summer of 2011 the Hun-garian camp system has been further ra-mified: there is now a new camp in Ba-lassagyarmat (opened on 8.6.2011), whereespecially those whose applications wererejected are held.20 Balassagyarmat is ahalf-open camp. The refugees receive nofurther financial support and they aretold on arrival that they must wait thereto be deported.

Provided those affected are not im-mediately sent back at the border to therespective transit country, Hungary ad-ministers an asylum system in which thelevel of recognition concerning refugeestatus – especially for those fleeing fromSomalia – is relatively high by Europeanstandards. But in contrast to this arethe extremely poor living conditions andvery high hurdles with regard to accessto schools, the social system and the la-bour market.

The new Orban government's asylumand migration legislation21, passed on24.12.2010, has drastically tightened upthe asylum and alien laws. We mentiononly a few of the most dramatic changes22:

q A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

SURVEY

Overview of Hungarian asylum systemFACTS AND FIGURES

10

t The maximum detention period wasraised from 6 to 12 months.

t The imprisonment of asylum seekersinvolved in an on-going Dublin II processis now firmly written into the law.

t Asylum seekers can be detained in thecourse of on-going asylum proceedings,with the result that many of those see-king protection are obliged to followthese proceedings from within prisonwalls.

t Responsibility concerning claims forlegal representation in the asylum pro-cess has been transferred from the Me-tropolitan Court (central court inBudapest) to district courts with scantyexperience in this sphere.

The legal changes have exacerbatedthe hardships already endured by asylumseekers and refugees. Large numbers ofrefugees are attempting, after registrationas asylum seekers, to leave Hungaryagain, and not only since the changes inlegislation. The reasons for this are ma-nifold and, as a rule, existential. In thefollowing section, 'Deficits in the Hun-garian Asylum System', they will be dealtwith in detail.

The attempt to find protection andhumane living conditions in another EUmember state has, however, failed inmany cases. Many of those who havetried to do so were relatively quickly re-turned to Hungary after fleeing furtheron. This happens in the case of asylumseekers or rejected applicants on the

basis of the Dublin II Regulation and inthe case of recognised refugees on thegrounds of readmission agreements23.Countless refugees who described theirexperiences for this report had been de-ported from other European countriesto Hungary.

S U R V E Y

11

DISCUSSIONS IN THE DEBRECEN REFUGEE CAMP Photo: bordermonitoring.eu

DEPORTATION CENTRE IN BALLASAGYARMAT

Photo: bordermonitoring.eu

PRE-INTEGRATION CAMP FOR REFUGEES IN BICSKE

Photo: bordermonitoring.eu

The refugees questioned name variousreasons for not staying in Hungary butfleeing elsewhere, amongst other things:

t The detention conditions, long in-ternment periods, experience with po-lice violence in detention, drugaddiction (often developing in prison).

t Most have had traumatic prison ex-periences in Hungary.

t The impossibility of treatment for ill-nesses (both physical and mental).

t Homelessness, hunger, cold and thelack of perspective as regards integra-tion.

t There are hardly any examples of thesuccessful integration of refugees inHungary.

t There are few opportunities for accessto language or integration courses.

t Access to the labour market is as goodas impossible, even for recognised refu-gees.

t For many refugees (above all, from So-malia) there is practically no chance offamily reunion, which is unendurable forthose who have left wives and children

in their country of origin.

t In other European countries thereare already family members or friendswho could help in the integration pro-cess.

t Experience of racist assaults.

These abuses are outlined in more detailin the following section.

DETENTION CONDITIONS

'If you want to know what Hungarymeans for refugees, then you must knowwhat it means to live in a prison for sixmonths which can only be endured withTramadol.24 Hungary is the only country Iknow where people are locked up just becausethey have applied for asylum. Hungary,however, has signed the Geneva RefugeeConvention'. (A.A., Refugee from Iran)

REASONS FOR DETENTION

The majority of asylum seekers inHungary (including the so-called 'Dublinreturnees') are detained in special refugeeprisons. There are no clear guidelines asto who is to be detained or for how long.In practice it can be observed that onlythose asylum seekers whose applicationsare considered 'potentially successful'have a chance of avoiding long-term im-prisonment and being released early.Others remain under arrest for the wholeduration of their asylum procedure (evenif some of them are at least granted sub-sidiary protection at the end of the pro-ceedings).

Detention is based officially on theexistence of a deportation order. Thisorder is issued in principle on the occasionof any arrest (and also in the case ofmost Dublin returnees directly on theirarrival at Budapest Airport). Only af-terwards is an asylum application or arequest for the re-opening of a case re-gistered. This does not, however, meanthe end of detention.

DURATION OF ARREST

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

DEFICITS

Between homelessness and detentionWHY SO MANY REFUGEES LEAVE HUNGARY AGAIN

12

What makes the situation in Hungary so unendurable for refugees? In the following chapter it will be explained why those intervieweeswho fled from Hungary find it inconceivable ever to return there. Why is it, that people who had been subjected to the most serious breachesof human rights, and would be in mortal danger if they returned, would prefer 'to die in Somalia rather than go mad in Hungary' (A.B.,Refugee from Somalia)?

In December 2010 the maximum periodof detention was raised from six totwelve months – it is to be feared that(as with the previous maximum arrestterm of six months) it will be fully ex-ploited in most cases.

Even families with children can be detai-ned (for a maximum of 30 days) underthe new legislation.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committeenoted a switch in policy even before theasylum law changes of December 2010.Whereas the internment policy had pre-viously been rather moderate and mostasylum seekers accommodated in opencamps, imprisonment to restrict move-ment had already been imposed since

March 2010: 'According to the HHC'sknowledge, the Office of Immigration andNationality and the National Police Head-quarters issued a joint instruction in March2010 ordering that all irregular migrantsshould be detained regardless of their wishto seek asylum in Hungary.' 25

There is virtually no possibility of suc-cessfully opposing arrest through litiga-tion. It is laid down in law thatdetention is to be ended at once if de-portation is found to be unfeasible, butthis is in practice almost never the case.Without the authority of a judge, deten-tion can be imposed for a maximum of72 hours; beyond that a judge decidesmonthly on the extension of arrest. TheHelsinki Committee has, however, up tillnow witnessed hardly any cases in whicha judge did not extend detention: 'Local

D E T E N T I O N C O N D I T I O N S

13

DETENTION CAMP IN GYÖR Photo: UNHCR/ B.Szandelszky

DETENTION CENTRE IN NYÍRBÁTOR

Photo: Bordermonitoring.eu

courts issue basically identical decisions inall cases, the reasoning of which is shortand laconic, lacking proper fact assessmentand individualisation The HHC's long-stan-ding experience shows that – unlike in mostother European states – the extension ofalien police detention is automatic in Hun-gary.'26

DETENTION LOCATIONS

From as early as the spring of 2010, asy-lum seekers in Hungary have been regu-larly detained. Between April and July2010, altogether 11 temporary refugeecamps were opened. Nine of these pri-sons were set up in dilapidated policedetention centres27 that had been un-used for years. Some of these prisonswere attached to larger institutions al-ready in existence (Kiskunhalas and Ny-írbátor). These temporary detentionfacilities had 20 and 100 detention pla-ces respectively. The hygienic andstructural conditions were catastrophicin most of these temporary prisons, byway of which their capacity increasedfrom 282 to 698 places respectively.After the capacity of the two large regu-lar refugee camps (Kiskunhalas and Ny-írbátor) was more than doubled, thetemporary prisons were closed down,but are kept ready and waiting if morerefugees arrive in the future. The fourmajor detention centres are located inKiskunhalas, Nyírbátor, Györ and Buda-pest28. According to the Helsinki Com-mittee a further camp is planned on thesite of the initial reception centre in De-brecen.

DETENTION CONDITIONS

In its regular monitoring visits to Hun-garian detention camps, the HungarianHelsinki Committee has encounteredpeople belonging to groups in need ofspecial protection, such as pregnantwomen, who remain interned until theday of birth, as well as old, handicapped,sick and often traumatised people:“Pregnant, elderly, physically or mentallydisabled asylum seekers may be detainedalong with everyone else. (…) Psycho-socialcare is not yet available in immigration jailsin Hungary.'29

In addition, the prison atmosphereitself leads to the development or exa-cerbation of various traumatic conditi-ons:

‘During its monitoring visits the HHCfound in all facilities that a large numberof detainees had psychological or psychia-tric problems due to an untreated previo-us trauma, bad detention conditionsand/or forced inactivity.'30

In April 2011 the Hungarian Helsin-ki Committee issued a detailed reportunder the title 'Stuck in Jail - Immigrati-on Detention in Hungary (2010)'31, high-lighting the detention conditions inthese temporary prisons for refugees.

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

14

has, since his flight from Somaliatwo and a half years ago, spent morethan half of this time in various prisonsin Ukraine and Hungary. A. came toUkraine in April 2008 and attemptedto enter the EU from there: 'We reachedBarabas (a border town in Eastern Hun-gary), then the police arrived and said:'We'll help you'. But they were lyingand they deported us; I was sent toChop (a border town in West Ukraine),where I was interned for four months.On my second border crossing I wascaught again, but spent only two monthsin Chop and was then transferred toLutski (a detention centre in the Volyndistrict, financed by the EU). It's hardin Volyn, the rooms are very small, youcan't move around very much. Chop isa really tough prison. Caritas officialscame every Wednesday and broughtus food and some clothes. They didn'thave an interpreter. The interpretersneed money, the police need money,the watchman needs money. If youhave no relatives and so no money,you're in a hopeless situation in there'.

A. tried once again, and in retrospectsays he was even lucky, for after hissuccessful third attempt to cross theborder from the Ukraine, the maximum

detention period was increased therefrom six to twelve months; a friend ofhis has been in prison for the last 10months in Volyn.

At the third attempt, A. managedto flee from Ukraine but was once againcaught in Hungary, found to be of age,and sentenced to 5 months' imprison-ment for breaching an immigrationban imposed following the previous il-legal deportations to Ukraine: 'Theytook my fingerprints in Budapest. Be-cause I'd already been in Hungary twicethey brought me before a judge and Iwas sentenced to 5 months in prison.It was a regular prison near BudapestAirport. It's mixed, a big prison, notonly refugees as in Lutski. There werefour of us in my cell, two Hungarians,a Bulgarian and me. When I was in pri-son I feared for my life; there are peopleinside who've given themselves up. Myfriends didn't even know if I still existed.When you go out to the prison courtyardfor one hour a day and everyone comesup to you out of curiosity because ofyour different skin colour and somespit at you; you get frightened thatthey'll do worse to you. I was reallyscared stiff. I was in prison for fourmonths and 18 days.'

A.I.B. (17 YEARS OLD, FROM SOMALIA)

EFFECTS OF THE TOUGHER

PRISON CONDITIONS

An increase in self-inflicted wounds,hunger strikes and protests are dealtwith by police violence.

As early as the beginning of 2011, afterdiscussions during the initial researchtrips in Hungary, the following pictureof the newly erected temporary prisonsemerged:

'The prison conditions vary greatly; in someof these places the state of the accommoda-tion alone was awful. Depending on theharshness of the detention conditions, mas-sive protests broke out in all these camps. In

smaller police stations, where the detaineeswere sometimes treated more humanely,there were as a rule fewer protests; therewere perhaps only one or two hunger strikesduring the summer months. In most of theother (new and old) detention centres,countless hunger strikes occurred and self-harming was common (and unfortunatelyalso widespread fighting between the va-rious groups of refugees). In Kiskunhalas,near the Serbian border, a whole storey bur-ned down following a revolt. At least onebreakout involving more than ten interneesoccurred in Nyírbátor; most were caughtshortly afterwards. This all happened al-most completely unnoticed by the generalpublic.'32

A report by the Hungarian HelsinkiCommittee describes some incidents ofviolence in the refugee camps, as well asself-harming by refugees, and relatesthese directly to the stricter detentionconditions: ' Such a severe limitation ofmovement for several months and withoutany legal ground results in extreme frustra-tion, which generates psychological and me-dical problems, as well as an aggressiveattitude. The correlation experienced by theHHC between the severe limitation of mo-vement and the frequency of violent con-flicts, self-harm and protests is thereforenot surprising'33

D E T E N T I O N R E G I M E

15HAFTLAGER IN GYÖR Photo: UNHCR/ B.Szandelszky

Protests, violence and self-inflicted inju-ries were everyday occurrences betweenApril and September 2010 in some ofthe refugee camps. The Hungarian Hel-sinki Committee report lists the follo-wing incidents:34

t Hunger strikes took place in the pri-sons at Salgótarján (34 prisoners for oneweek), Debrecen (27 prisoners), Eger(one person for over ten days), Csongrád(16 prisoners) and Baja.

t There were attempted suicides in De-brecen and Tatabánya, fortunately un-successful.

t In a number of detention centres'physical disciplinary measures' werecarried out, at Székesfehérvár, Nyírbá-tor, Salgótarján, and Tatabánya.

t In Tatabánya detainees protested inJuly 2010 by beating on the doors,shouting, pleading for access to the pri-son courtyard and the opportunity tosmoke after the evening meal. Followingthis, the guard called for reinforcements,whereupon masked local policemenstormed the prison, handcuffed priso-ners and beat up at least one prisoner.The injuries were so serious that theywere still clearly visible three weeks laterduring the visit by the HHC delegation.

t It was reported to the HHC that inNyírbátor, after the breakout by someprisoners, the guards physically abuseddetainees in their beds with clubs, as col-lective punishment.

t Prisoners from Nyírbátor reportedthat the guards made monkey noiseswhen Muslim refugees were at theirprayers.

t Violence was the major concern inSalgótarján and Nyírbátor. In Salgótar-ján fighting broke out amongst the in-ternees in June 2010 and resulted inseveral of them being injured.

t A number of cases of self-harming oc-curred; for example on 20.5.2010 a pri-soner banged his head against the ironbars of his cell door, whereupon he was

sedated with an injection.

On 2.8.2010 another detainee cut hishead open with a razor blade in protestagainst the detention conditions. Priso-ners also reported to the HHC that gu-ards used pepper spray againstdetainees if they protested against theconditions.

t 15 different incidents were documen-ted by the guards in Nyírbátor themsel-ves, whereby instruments of physicalrestraint (handcuffs, truncheons, pep-per spray) were implemented to breakdown resistance.

t The most dramatic act of protest tookplace on 14.8.2010, when some detai-nees set fire to mattresses in Kiskunha-las. As a result two prisoners were placedunder strict arrest. Other detaineesspoke of violent behaviour on the partof the guards.

SYSTEMATIC ADMINISTRATION

OF SEDATIVES

'They started to use these methods becausemore and more trouble occurred in thecamps, the more people they crammed in.Everyone has to take these pills in Nyírbá-tor!' (H.S. from Afghanistan)

In Debrecen refugees told us repea-tedly of their previous experiences invarious prisons and stressed 'that aboveall in Nyírbátor sleeping pills and other se-datives are expressly used to quieten detai-nees down. In this way all the refugeestransferred to Debrecen from this prisonin the last 3 to 4 months appear depressiveand sleepy. Many try to continue getting'head tablets' from the prison doctor. Refusalto do so makes the detainees aggressive.The medicines are clearly powerful drugscausing withdrawal symptoms when nolonger available. (…) As a rule the sedativesare not administered by force: in the morningand evening a doctor or a policeman goesthrough the cells and offers the tablets.Many are happy to take them. There is not-hing to do and time passes slowly: 'Youonly want to forget where you are and justsleep, only sleep'.35

In a letter to a lawyer in Frankfurt,the UNHCR wrote: 'In September 2011imprisoned refugees also reported that theywere given drugs or sedatives systematically,which sometimes led to drug addiction.This information was confirmed by the per-sonnel at those reception centres, wheresome asylum seekers were transferred toat the end of their imprisonment. After awritten protest in October 2011 by theUNHCR to the police authorities responsible,significantly fewer reports on symptoms ofthis kind of drug abuse were received bythe UNHCR.'36

In the deportation camp in Balassa-gyarmat refugees also told us in Sep-tember 2011 that, of the 28 men livingthere at the time of the interview (mainlyrefugees from Afghanistan), about 20regularly took Tramadol. 'Since my de-tention in Nyírbátor I can't stop taking it.One tablet is no longer enough to send meto sleep,' said I.H., and wonders if he willever be able to sleep again without tab-lets.

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

16

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

In a letter to a lawyer in Frankfurt,the UNHCR updated information thatwas used as the basis for a decision madeby the Austrian Asylum Court with regardto the situation of asylum seekers inHungary, in particular on the basis of aperson deported on grounds of the DublinRegulation as follows:37

'1) Danger of detention in Hungaryafter a Dublin return

Asylum seekers arrested by the police inHungary for illegal entry or residence areimmediately imprisoned there, even if theymake an asylum application at once. Onlyunaccompanied minors who are clearlyunder age are not detained.

The general detention of asylum seekershas been increasingly practised since April2010. With the legal changes in December2010, arrest was made possible, even afterthe end of the preliminary hearing (deter-mination of the responsibility of Dublin orinvestigation of entry from a secure third

state) and the start of the asylum procedure.Now detention of up to 12 months is possible.Families with children can be detained onlyexceptionally and then only up to thirtydays. In 2011, 77 families were imprisoned.Only 65 of them were released again beforethe maximum period of arrest.

Decisions by the authorities on impri-sonment must be legally confirmed. However,this legal inquiry is largely a mere formalityin the estimation of the UNHCR and gua-rantees no textual examination of thereasons for imprisonment. According to in-formation received by the UNHCR the legalinvestigation of arrest in the case of asylumseekers, for groups of ten to twenty prisoners,regularly lasts no longer than a total of 30minutes. In consequence, it cannot be as-sumed that each individual case was carefullyscrutinised as to whether the imposition ofimprisonment was justified. With regardto the lack of effectiveness of legal instru-ments concerning detention, see also thedecision made by the ECHR in the case ofLokpo and Touré against Hungary (sentenceof 20.9.2011, Complaint No.:10816/10).At the ECHR, further appeals by asylumseekers are pending, in which the effective-ness of legal instruments concerning im-prisonment is placed in question (see theproceedings Alaa Al-Tayyar versus Hungary(13058/11) and Hendrin Ali Said versusHungary (13457/11) ).

On the grounds of the Dublin II Regu-lation (re)deported asylum seekers are alsoarrested. (…) A description of the detentionpractice can also be found in the report bythe ECHR in its decision of 20.9.11 in thecases Lokpo and Touré versus Hungary,Complaint No. : 10816/10. (…)

2) Prison conditions

The provisional prison facilities fre-quently used for the detention of asylumseekers in 2010, which were only designedfor stays of up to 72 hours for criminal in-vestigations and therefore unsuitable forlong-term accommodation, have no longerbeen used to imprison refugees since thebeginning of 2011, after the number of ap-plicants significantly dwindled. The facilitiesnow in use are subject to a strict prisonprogramme (with regard to furnishings,

wire fencing, visiting rules). However, de-pending on the particular prison there hasbeen some relaxation, confinement to thecells only at night and improvements con-cerning access to activities in the open airand to toilet facilities, as well as the use ofcommunal rooms. (…)

The main problem noted when detaineeswere questioned by the UNHCR in Sep-tember 2011 was the abuse by prisonguards. It appears that abuse and harass-ment by the police occur frequently. All theasylum seekers spoken to complained aboutthe brutality of the guards. Not all theprison staff acted in that way, but some ofthem on certain shifts provoked the prisoners,it was claimed, insulting them verbally andeven beating them up. A fundamental reasonfor this seems to be that the prison policehired hundreds of new guards who had notraining and no supervision during theirshifts. (…)

At night and at weekends there are nosocial workers in the facilities; however,these are the times when most attacks arecarried out by the guards. (…)

Imprisoned asylum seekers are taken tocourt, to the bank or to the post office inhandcuffs, although they are only in prisonfor illegal entry/residence and have notbeen accused of any crimes. Detained refu-gees are however not only handcuffed whenthey are taken to outside locations (e.g.asylum proceedings, court hearings, postoffice), but are also led on a chain normallyreserved for criminals.' 38

On 20.9.2011 Hungary was condem-

D E T E N T I O N R E G I M E

17

H.G. (21 YRS, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

was deported to Budapest via Mu-nich in the autumn of 2010 and heldfor three months in Nyírbátor, nearthe Ukrainian border. After his releasehe lived till February 2011 in Debrecen,a desolate camp at the edge of thetown, together with some 300 otherdetainees. He found the prison con-ditions in Nyírbátor catastrophic. Be-sides the lack of any perspectives hedescribes the regular abuse by the gu-ards and above all the administrationof powerful sedatives as the most se-rious problems. 'They go from doorto door with a tray full of drugs. Ifyou take them you'll forget everything.The pills make you look like a zombieand your face doesn't move anymore.'His friend K.R. spoke of a companionwho was interned in Nyírbátor for 6months. When he refused to take thetablets he was beaten until he finallyswallowed them.

ned by the European Court of HumanRights (ECHR) for breach of Article 5(1)of the European Convention of HumanRights (ECHR). The two plaintiffs werearrested on 10.3.2009 for illegal entryand released on 10.9.2009 at the end ofthe maximum detention period in forceat that time. From the prison itself thetwo plaintiffs applied for asylum on18.3.2009; this did not end their impri-sonment. As the ECHR noted, Article55(3) of the Hungarian Asylum Act pro-vides that asylum seekers must be re-leased as soon as their case has reachedthe 'in merit' phase, due to the RefugeeAuthority's notification to the Alien Ad-ministration. 39 As the Court further de-termined, the plaintiffs were not releasedsince the refugee authority had not ini-tiated this procedure. 40 The Court con-cluded, therefore, '[…] that the applicantswere deprived of their liberty by virtueof the mere silence of an authority – aprocedure which in the Court´s viewverges on arbitrariness '41 The Article55(3) criticised by the ECHR was abro-gated at the end of 2010 following thetightening of legal restrictions; as a rule,

asylum seekers have since then been im-prisoned during the 'in merit' phase.

On 11.1.2012 the European Court ofHuman Rights halted the deportationof a Sudanese asylum seeker from Austriato Hungary. 42 The refugee had basedhis claim on the argument that the trans-fer would expose him to inhumane treat-ment and he was being put at a disad-vantage compared to other asylum see-kers whose applications had recentlybeen decided on by the Austrian AsylumCourt. 43

TRAUMATISED

Imprisonment has particularly seriousconsequences for traumatised refugeesunder the conditions described above.The following detailed individual accountsof cases are certainly only the tip of theiceberg. It must be assumed that theneed for psychological treatment is scar-cely touched upon in Hungarian prisonsand detention centres. The cases continueto show, in an appalling fashion, thatthe Hungarian authorities are not evenaverse to imprisoning Dublin II returneeswho are seriously mentally ill. This occurseven if the illness has been clearly docu-mented by doctors and psychologists.

The two cases of imprisonment ofseverely traumatised people (attestedby medical staff) under the conditionsdescribed above lead one to doubt whet-her the European reception guidelinesare observed by Hungary. Article 17 inparticular, which foresees a special re-ception procedure for the traumatised,can be regarded as breached here.44

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

18

IMPRISONED REFUGEE IN A DETENTION CENTRE NEAR THE SERBIAN BORDER Photo: UNHCR / B. Szandelszky

T R A U M A T I S E D

19

F.A. (24 YRS, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

was returned to Budapest from Rot-terdam/Netherlands in October 2010.He worked for the ISAF in Afghanistanas an interpreter and was threatenedwith execution. His face is pale, he ap-pears completely exhausted when wemeet him on one of the first reallywarm days in Spring 2011 in Debrecen.When F.A. reached Hungary over a yearago he was arrested and his fingerprintstaken. He left Hungary after a shortperiod in detention and fled on to theNetherlands. A cousin of his lives inthe Netherlands; he was able to giveF.A. some support during his repeatednervous breakdowns: 'I must be withmy family or I will go insane,' says F.A.He is seriously traumatised, suffersfrom severe headaches, a racing pulse,bone and back pains and sleeplessness.He was given psychiatric treatment inthe Netherlands. However, in October2010 he was deported to Hungary, ac-companied by two police officers and aDutch doctor. In Budapest his medicalfiles, containing doctors' reports and alist of prescribed medicines, were handedover to the Hungarian border police inthe presence of the Hungarian RedCross. Both the Dutch doctor and theHungarian Red Cross stressed that F.A.should not be imprisoned in his condi-tion. He was still taken to Nyírbátor,where he spent more than five monthsin detention. Instead of the drugs pres-cribed in the Netherlands he was giventhe usual sleeping tablets in Nyírbátor.As he had already been treated withpsychotropic drugs in the Netherlandsthese had no effect. F.A. woke up atnight for months. He inflicted severe

wounds on his arms: 'I was so tiredthat I no longer wanted to live.' Theprison doctor told him he could havethe prescribed drugs if he paid for themhimself. But F.A. did not have 120 eurosmonthly and how could he earn it inprison? The Hungarian Red Cross visitedhim twice during his time in prisonand tried to intervene on his behalfagainst his detention, but in vain. Hewas released from prison only afterover five months of imprisonment. Inthe open prison in Debrecen he wasalso told he could only have Paracetamol,he would have to pay for other drugs.Apart from food and accommodationF.A. receives no support of any kind.On that spring day in Debrecen F.A.said quietly and plainly during our good-byes, 'I'll try it once again and if I can'tstay, I'll finish myself off.' He is currentlythreatened again with deportation fromthe Netherlands to Hungary.

M.R. (EARLY 30S, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

came to Hungary in 2009. Duringhis flight he was the victim of severeattacks by human traffickers. These in-cidents seriously traumatised him. Hefled on from Hungary to Austria, wherefrom November 2009 he was treatedin hospital a number of times as an in-patient for severe post-traumatic stressand depression. Besides sudden falls,M.R. completely lost his power of speechand could communicate only in writing.For fear of deportation from Austriahe travelled on to Sweden, where healso spent some time in hospital. Ho-wever, M.R. was returned to Hungaryin January 2011. He had panic attacksbefore his deportation and above all he

feared the subsequent imprisonment.'No one believed that I would imme-diately end up in prison in Hungary,but I was so frightened that the psy-chologists in Sweden felt sorry for meand said they would do their best forme if I was detained.' M.R. arrived atBudapest Airport in January 2011 andwas immediately handcuffed by fiveHungarian border policemen and im-prisoned. The accompanying medicaldocuments did not interest the police(and later, too, M.R. tried constantlybut unsuccessfully to draw their atten-tion to them). After M.R. did not get intouch as agreed, the Swedish psychia-trists started a search for him. Due tothis pressure M.R. was transferred toDebrecen for psychiatric treatment.'They handcuffed me and took me toDebrecen in a police car. A chain wasattached to the handcuffs. They pulledme with this chain, tied up like a dan-gerous criminal, to the psychiatrist'soffice. They dragged me like a cowthrough the whole camp past all theother people. I can't tell you how humi-liating that was. Due to the stress Icouldn't speak any more when I stoodbefore the psychiatrist and it took agesfor me to make it clear to them that atleast I needed one hand free to com-municate in writing with the psychia-trist.' A few days later, M.R., after 25days in detention, was released, thanksto pressure from the psychiatrists. M.R.cannot imagine that he would stay inHungary and asks himself: 'How longwill I be able to endure wanderingaround Europe looking for a safe place?Could I survive imprisonment in Hun-gary again?' As he speaks, the wordsstick in his throat again and again.

MINORS

''No refugees in orbit' was a major claimof the so-called Dublin II Regulation, whichdelegates responsibility for the asylum pro-cess. But the opposite is the case. More andmore refugees - including minors – are wan-dering, after arriving in an apparently safehaven, for months or even years throughvarious European countries'45 This odysseyhas an awful effect, above all on unac-companied refugee minors: young peoplewho are left to their own devices farfrom their families, and find no safeplace to stay, appear especially unsettledand sometimes lose all interest in life.Huge psychological problems leading toself-harm or even suicidal tendenciesare not unusual amongst unaccompaniedminors threatened with return to Hun-gary.

Unaccompanied refugee minors(URMs) are to be housed since the sum-mer of 2011 in the 'Children's Village'in Fót. On a visit we could witness oneof the few positive developments inHungary since the start of our enquiries:the accommodation and treatment inFót was found to be good by the youngpeople we spoke to there. In Fót thereare two residential groups, each with 35places, and run by teachers and socialworkers; in one of them minors are hou-sed, while in the other, adolescent formerminors are accommodated. However,considering the huge increase in thenumber of URMs – not only in Hungary– over the last few years, it is to befeared that only a few of these youngpeople can be sheltered there.

ARBITRARY AGE ASSESSMENT: MAKING

MINOR DUBLIN RETURNEES 'OLDER'

Many times we were told by youngrefugees that on their arrival in Hungarythey were given a medical test to assesstheir age,46 after which they were regis-tered as minors and transferred to thechildren's home of Interchurch Aid Hun-gary at Bicske. Most of the minors wespoke to left Hungary a short time afterthe transfer to Bicske because of thetotal lack of any perspective there. Butthey were soon disappointed in their ho-pes of finding protection and receptionin another EU country. They were usuallyreturned to Hungary under the DublinRegulation, as Hungary was declared tobe the state of initial entry into the EU.On arrival their age was assessed by adoctor (often the same one!) merely onappearances. In this way minors previo-usly registered as under age became

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

20

MINOR IN DEPORTATION CAMP AT BUDAPEST AIRPORT Photo: UNHCR / B. Szandelszky

'older' within a few months and weresuddenly 19 years old. We talked to someyoung people who were clearly no olderthan 18, who after return were registeredas being 29 or 30.47 The refugees them-selves assume that the 'ageing' processis systematic. Some of those we spoketo had been in several European countrieswhere their age had been assessed byvarious methods and they were registeredeverywhere as minors – but not in Hun-gary.

In some of the cases known to us, mi-nors were imprisoned after their Dublinreturn, although this is not foreseen inHungarian law. The date of birth wasusually changed beforehand (and some-times afterwards!) by the Hungarian aut-horities.48

The UNHCR also highlighted the pro-blem of the detention of minors:

'Unaccompanied minors should be com-pletely exempt from detention and housedin special facilities in Fót. However, unac-companied minors whose age is in doubtare imprisoned, as UNHCR research hasshown.' 49

The Hungarian Helsinki Committeehas also observed this during regularvisits to the detention camps:

'On several occasions during its detentionmonitoring visits the HHC has witnessedunaccompanied minors detained in the im-migration jails. After checking their files itwas noted, that the doctor determined theirage only by looking at their torsos. The wayage assessment is carried out in Hungary ishighly problematic.'50

On 31.1.2012 the UNHCR Nurembergdescribed in a letter to a lawyer the caseof two minors who had been deportedfrom Germany to Hungary: 'During itsmonitoring, the UNHCR, in September2011, spoke to two unaccompanied asy-lum-seeking minors in Nyírbátor prison.Both had been returned from Germany toHungary according to Dublin II and hadpapers with them showing that they wereminors. The young people told us they hadbeen issued with these documents in Ger-many after an age assessment procedure.However, both the Hungarian police andthe authorities ignored these documents.'51

U N A C C O M P A N I E D R E F U G E E M I N O R S

21

A.R. (17 YRS, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

has a vertiginous history of flight be-hind him, with countless prison staysand deportations.

Until 2007, after fleeing from Afgha-nistan, he lived with his parents andyounger siblings in Pakistan. He thentravelled to Turkey via Iran. In Van hewas arrested and detained for two monthsin Ankara, then deported to Kabul. FromAfghanistan he returned to Pakistan andfled again through Iran and Turkey toGreece, where he was once again arrested.He went on after that to Albania, wherehe spent a month in prison in Tirana. InKosovo, the next stage, he spent twodays in detention. In Belgrade, Serbia,he stayed at an orphanage for 3 monthswith Serbian children and adolescents.A. was still searching for Europe, the safehaven where he could find protection.

On the Hungarian border he was ar-rested and held in prison overnight beforebeing taken to Bicske camp. Here too hewas placed in solitary confinement for 3days. A doctor declared him to be of age.Since deportation to Greece threatened,

he fled to Austria. There he was held for10 days. After severe self-harm (scarringhis arms) he was sent as a minor to theAustrian initial reception centre in Trais-kirchen. After about 4 months he wasreturned to Hungary and interned in Bé-késcaba for 15 days. He fled again toAustria, where he claimed to be 30, hopingthat as an adult they would take himmore seriously. After some 3 months hewas placed under deportation arrest andsent back to Hungary again. He spentanother 15 days in Békéscaba and 4months in Nyírbátor, subsequently 2months in Zalaegerszeg and 2 days inprison in Budapest.

A. fled for the third time to Austria,stayed for a month in the initial receptioncamp in Traiskirchen and travelled furtherto Switzerland before being deported.There he was registered as a minor, but 3weeks later as an adult. A. then lived for6 months in Zurich in various camps.Before his third return to Hungary hewas in prison in Zurich for about 5 daysand sent to a deportation camp near Ger-many for 3 weeks before being deportedto Hungary again. At the airport in Buda-pest he was told to go to Debrecen or to

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

22

another European country. He was refuseda bus ticket to Debrecen. He spent 2months in Debrecen before being takento the new deportation camp in Balassa-gyarmat. He escaped again and is now li-ving in a Hamburg youth facility. Due tohis harrowing history of flight he suffersfrom post-traumatic stress disorder, asmedical attests show.

E.A. (18 YRS, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

has been living in Frankfurt since Octo-ber 2010. He has experienced a 2-yearodyssey through half of Europe. He fledvia Pakistan, Iran and Turkey to Greece.In late summer of 2009 he reached theGreek island of Lesbos. He was internedthere for 10 weeks. His long journeythrough Europe began in Pagani Camp,which due to its awful conditions hadaroused international outrage. Followinga revolt, mattresses and blankets wereset alight in the overcrowded cell, holding83 mostly juvenile refugees. One day laterE.A. was released. He spent several nightson the streets before getting to Athensby ferry. There too he slept in parks andwitnessed racist attacks on refugees. Hetried to flee further but was caught on aship to Italy and sent back to Greece.Again he spent 8 weeks in prison. Hedescribes the prison situation as appalling;too little to eat, packed cells and few mat-tresses. As he was a minor and had noguardian he was kept there longer thanothers – 8 weeks' arrest again. After har-ming himself seriously he was releasedagain. He was still on the way to Norway,where an aunt of his lives. In February2010, on a very cold night, E.A. was ar-

rested, together with other Afghan minors,just behind the Serbian border in Hungary.In Hungary he had applied for asylumafter being threatened with several monthsin prison and deportation to Greece. Hewitnessed violence on the part of theHungarian border police and was medicallytested to assess his age, his collar boneeven being X-rayed. As a 16-year-old hewas transferred to Bicske and confinedthere for a number of days. He soon rea-lised that the conditions in Hungary werereally bad, and food was served only twicea day. At night he was unable to sleep, asthe memories of his prison stays all overEurope haunted him. E.A. fled onwardsand actually arrived in Norway. Threatenedagain with deportation to Hungary, hehid under a friend's mattress when thepolice arrived and escaped. This time itwas Sweden, where he applied for asylum.He told his story everywhere and said hecould not return to Hungary, he was sofrightened. In October 2010 he finally ar-rived in Frankfurt. He is still unable tosleep, due to his traumatic experienceson the run and in prison. 'In Hungary I'llend up in jail. I couldn't stand that again,'E.A. told us. His fears were justified, forin Hungary E.A. was now suddenly 30years old, although he had previouslybeen registered as a minor, and even inGermany, Norway, and Sweden no onehad questioned this. According to theHHC this procedure entails a prison termof several months in Hungary. Despiteall the insecurity, however, E.A. is now fi-nally in Frankfurt. 'Do you think I'll gomad? I feel at home here,' he told us inGerman. And this time he has at lastfound a place to stay. The deportation

order to Hungary has expired and hisasylum application is now being processedin Germany.

H.A. (18 YRS, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

was with E.A. when they crossed theborder into Hungary. He had also spentlong periods in prison even as a minor inGreece and Macedonia. He was also ar-rested in Hungary and given a medicalexamination to assess his age. His teethwere inspected and his collar bone X-rayed. In February 2010 he was taken toBicske as a 16-year-old, from where hemade his way alone to Austria. The Aus-trians decided to send him back to Hun-gary, even though he had described indetail how he had been mistreated inpolice custody in Hungary. After depor-tation by Austria he had suddenly agedby 2 years for the Hungarian authoritiesand was sentenced to 6 months in Györ.Afterwards his asylum interview tookplace – and although H. A. only speaksDari the interpreter spoke Pashto. A furt-her problem disturbs H., who is still inHungary:' The fights between the differentrefugee groups in Debrecen are particularlybad. At the moment the worst ones arebetween Afghans and Arabs. It's worst inthe evenings, if a number of rejectionshave been made. Last week there was asquabble between more than 50 peoplein the courtyard. One man was kicked sobadly in the face that for days he wouldn'tgo outside, his face looked so awful. Somedrink too much because they don't seeany future. They lose control then. I'mafraid of something really serious happe-ning.'

DUBLIN II RETURNEES

In 2010, 742 refugees from other Eu-ropean countries were deported to Hun-gary according to Dublin II; in 2009 itwas 934. Germany is the country whichhas deported most people (2009: 261returns; 2010: 198 returns), followedby Austria (2009: 159 returns; 2010:

100 returns) and France (2009: 229 re-turns, 2010: 100 returns). Hungary istherefore, just behind Italy and Poland,one of the countries into which mostdeportations are made.52

The general problems already por-trayed – especially imprisonment andhomelessness – affect Dublin returneesin particular.

'Whoever flees and breaks off the proce-dure is no longer an asylum seeker.' Refugeesreport that they are told on arrival at Buda-pest Airport that they are going to go toprison as punishment for fleeing from Hun-gary. (…) The camps are full of deporteesfrom Austria, Germany, Belgium, France,etc.'53 This is how refugees in Hungarydescribe their predicament as Dublin IIreturnees.

D U B L I N I I R E T U R N E E S

23

FINGERPRINTING IN DEBRECEN REFUGEE CAMP Photo: UNHCR / B. Szandelszky

Asylum seekers deported to Hungaryaccording to Dublin II are imprisonedalmost without exception. The HHC re-ports in this respect: 'The OIN does notconsider persons returned under Dublin asbeing asylum seekers automatically. Inpractice the alien police first starts with analien policing procedure (and issue an ex-pulsion order) and only after this, the OINregisters asylum application. As a result, aperson may be detained for the purpose ofexpulsion which can last for the entire du-ration of the asylum procedure, but for amaximum of 12 months’..54

The UNHCR states: 'Hungary regardsDublin II returnees as re-applicants. Thismeans that legal action against negativedecisions do not automatically have a de-laying effect, and legal aid with regard toapproval is significantly reduced in compa-rison to initial applications.' 55

In December 2011, in an informationleaflet under the title 'Access to Protectionin Danger', the HHC summarised thetreatment of so-called Dublin II returneesin Hungary as follows:

In the view of the Hungarian HelsinkiCommittee, Hungary offers insufficient re-ception facilities and inadequate access toprotection for asylum seekers returningunder the Dublin II Regulation:

t Asylum seekers returning under theDublin II Regulation (so-called 'Dublin re-turnees') are as a rule immediately issuedwith a deportation order, independently oftheir wish to apply for asylum.

t Dublin returnees previously applying forasylum in Hungary cannot continue their(interrupted) application for asylum inHungary and their continuance of their ap-plication is treated as a new procedure.

t Follow-up asylum applications me-anwhile have no deferring effect on depor-tation measures (except in individualcases), so those returning to Hungaryunder Dublin II rules often have no pro-tection against deportation, even if theirasylum application had never been investi-gated in an EU member state.

t On the basis of the automatically issueddeportation order, most of the Dublin re-turnees are placed in deportation detentionwith no consideration of their individual si-tuation or of any alternatives to imprison-ment.

t Complaints against deportation arrestare ineffective; the extension of detentionis declared quasi-automatically in almostall cases.

t Those Dublin II returnees (who weretaken back by Hungary) who are not detai-ned have no access to appropriate receptionconditions, as their follow-up applicationdoes not justify any claim to the accommo-dation and support normally available toasylum seekers.56

Furthermore, the UNHCR sees thedanger of chain deportation to Serbia(see also the next section) also for Dublinreturnees:

'The Hungarian asylum authority con-tinues to regard Serbia, in contrast to theviews of the UNHCR, as a safe third statefor asylum seekers and returns to Serbiathose entering from there without examiningtheir asylum application. This also appliesto procedures in which the applicant waspreviously returned to Hungary underDublin II. Only in 20% of all asylum pro-ceedings is an examination of the reasonsfor flight conducted.'

The decision practice in the Hungariancourts when legal action is taken variesconsiderably. Whereas the court in Buda-pest in several cases has obliged the asy-lum authority to undertake detailed exa-mination of the asylum application, thedecisions of the authority are confirmedwithout close scrutiny by the court inSzeged, which is responsible for mostcases involving persons entering via Ser-bia.'57

REFOULEMENT

A large number of the refugees livingin Hungary or passing through it ontheir journey have already had experience,before registration in Hungary, of im-prisonment for many months and of il-legal deportation (refoulement). Whencrossing the Ukrainian-Hungarian orSerbian-Hungarian border, refugees arein many cases sent back by the Hungarianborder police almost at once, even ifthey produce an asylum application. InUkraine a prison term of up to 12 monthsfollows as a rule: this is in a camp largelyfinanced since 2008 by EU funds. In Ser-bia the deported people are faced withabsolute poverty and moreover in dangerof facing a series of further deportati-ons.

UKRAINE

In January 2011 the Border Monito-ring Project Ukraine (BMPU) criticisedthe fact, together with Pro Asyl, that re-fugees reaching Hungary from Ukraineare greatly threatened by refoulement:

'Dozens of refugees questioned by BMPUin the last two years all reported that theirright to asylum proceedings in Hungaryand similarly in Slovakia was refused andthey were deported to Ukraine within 24hours. This practice contravenes the so-called refoulement ban and is a clear breachof the Geneva Convention for Refugees, aswell as the European Convention of HumanRights. The number and distribution overtime of the deportations documented byBMPU lead one to assume that this is nota matter of isolated cases, but a regular, il-legal procedure.'58

In November 2010 a brochure wasissued by the Border Monitoring ProjectUkraine containing interviews with re-fugees, some of whom had been deporteda number of times from Hungary toUkraine:

'The Border Monitoring Project Ukraine(BMPU) has documented an alarming num-ber of unlawful returns to Ukraine. (…)BMPU revealed serious violations of inter-

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

24

national refugee law that are committedby the border police of several EU-memberstates. Cases of refoulement by Hungarianand Slovakian border patrols at the eternalborders of the EU are not an exception, butoccur on a regular basis.'59

The UNHCR report of November 2010on the occasion of the ‘Universal PeriodicReview', a periodical investigation intothe human rights situation in all UNmember states, also criticised Hungaryonce again for infringing the non-refou-lement principle:

‘Access to the country’s territory and tothe asylum procedure for asylum-seekers isnot ensured with full respect of the principleof non-refoulement. (…) For example, com-plaints (confirmed by NGOs) were receivedfrom and/or registered by Somali andAfghan asylum-seekers, including separatedminors, on their apparently forced returnto Ukraine by the Hungarian Border Poli-ce.'60

In November 2010 a detailed reportalso appeared from Human Rights Watchon the situation of refugees in Ukraine,criticising deportations to Ukraine fromHungary and Slovakia:

'More than half of the migrants inter-viewed who had been returned from Slovakiaand Hungary said that they were beatenor subjected to ill-treatment in Ukraine.Most had tried to seek asylum in Hungaryor Slovakia, but said their claims had beenignored and they were quickly expelled.Both countries also expelled unaccompaniedchildren.” And further: “This report hasshown that Slovakia and Hungary haveviolated the principle of non-refoulementin both refugee and human rights law, aswell as their obligation under EU law toprovide access to asylum. This report docu-ments that Ukrainian officials have torturedmigrants returned from Slovakia and Hun-gary and subjected them to inhuman anddegrading treatment and that asylum seekersreturned from Slovakia and Hungary havenot been provided effective protection fromreturn to places where they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or of beingexposed to other serious harm.'61

SERBIA

Not only at the Ukrainian-Hungarianborder are refugees in danger of beingreturned. The Serbian-Hungarian fron-tier is also increasingly a focal point ofrefoulement. In September 2011 hun-dreds of migrants from various crisisareas of the world were stuck in the Sub-otica/Serbia district a few kilometresfrom the Serbian-Hungarian border –homeless in a cemetery, for at least therethey had access to water. In one report150 people are mentioned, in anotherhundreds, and the Subotica grave-diggerestimated about 1,000 refugees.62 Theycame from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libyaand Tunisia. 'I have tried 3 times to getinto Hungary,' said a Libyan and sum-marised: 'Hungary? Big problem! Use-less to say you need asylum. Pointless tosay there is war where we come from, orthat we are persecuted – that doesn't in-terest the Hungarian border police atall.'63

At the beginning of 2011 the Serbianpolice burned down a collection of plas-

tic foil tents in which migrants had triedto survive under the most wretched con-ditions till an opportunity arose to fleeonwards into Europe. This incident wasdocumented on a Hungarian blog with avideo.64

Most refugees in Subotica have had theexperience at least once of being retur-ned from Hungary to Serbia, for Hun-gary denies asylum seekers crossing intoHungary via Serbia the investigation oftheir asylum applications, on thegrounds that Serbia is in a position tooffer them the necessary protection.Since the changes in asylum law in De-cember 2010, Hungary has introduced aregulation in which entry via a thirdcountry is to be checked before Hungarytakes responsibility for asylum applica-tions. Serbia is viewed by Hungary as a'safe third state.' That means, de facto,that since 2011, migrants entering Hun-gary via Serbia are in danger of deporta-tion to Serbia.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee didsome research in June 2011 in Serbia on

R E F O U L E M E N T

25

REFUGEE HUT IN SERBIA, NEAR THE BORDER TO HUNGARYPhoto: Merlin Nadj-Torma

the plight of refugees. The resulting re-port, 'Serbia as a Safe Third Country: aWrong Presumption,' comes to the con-clusion that this practice represents aninfringement of the European Conven-tion of Human Rights:

‘In reality, the Serbian asylum system islargely dysfunctional. Many asylum-see-kers face destitution and the entire systemis heavily underfunded and understaffed(only two officers have to deal with hun-dreds of cases). Even though a large propor-tion of asylumseekers come fromAfghanistan and Iraq, Serbia has nevergranted refugee status to anyone. Serbiaautomatically considers Greece and Turkeyas a safe third country, while Belarus andRussia figure on its list of safe countries oforigin. The UNHCR clearly advises againstthe consideration of Serbia as a safe thirdcountry.'65

Like most EU states, Hungary currentlydoes not send Dublin returnees directlyto Greece. However, Turkey as well asGreece are on the Serbian list of safethird countries:

'In the light of the grave deficiencies of someof the neighbouring countries’ asylum sys-tems (reference could be made for exampleto the 2011 M.S.S. judgement of the Euro-pean Court of Human Rights), this practicegives rise to a serious risk of chain refoule-ment.'66

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

26

R.A. (16 YRS, FROM AFGHANISTAN)

was arrested in February 2011 inHungary near the Serbian border, withtwo further unaccompanied minors. Theyoung people told of brutal beatings bythe police during their imprisonment.Being stripped naked at the police stationwas particularly humiliating for them.On the following day R. was arrested inKiskunhalas. 'I was really terrified,' herecalled, 'and felt constantly hungry, aswe got very little to eat. Besides, I didn'tunderstand why I was in prison. All Iwanted was to find my brother.' A fewdays after his arrest R. received a visitby an HHC lawyer from Budapest. Onone the following days he was returnedto Subotica/Serbia from the Hungarianprison. After his release he managed toget from Serbia to Hamburg. In the me-antime he is living there together withhis brother, who has been living in Ham-burg for 3 years and has a regular resi-dence permit, in a youth support cen-tre.

The prison in Kiskunhalas was notthe first European prison R. had expe-

rienced during his flight from Afgha-nistan. On his journey over the Turkishmainland in the Evros region he wasarrested by a Greek border patrol andput in a hopelessly overcrowded prison.After a few days he was thrown on thestreet with the order to leave Greecewithin four weeks. He tried to get toItaly via Patras. 'I tried a number oftimes to cling onto a truck axle. I wasafraid of dying.' He then made his wayto Athens and decided after a few monthsto attempt to reach his brother in Ger-many via Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbiaand Hungary. In all these countries hewas imprisoned and experienced repea-ted violence. The severe breaches of hu-man rights R. was confronted with onthe EU borders, as well as inside Europe,on the way to his brother, have in theopinion of his doctor led to seriouspost-traumatic stress disorder. ' AlthoughI'm now with my brother I am stillfrightened. What's going to happen tome in Germany? Will I be able to staywith my brother? I find it hard to sleepat nights – I'm not the same personany more.'

SOCIAL SITUATION

'The cold and hunger in Hungary; thatis our war in Europe. And they send meback into this war again and again. It's likea scar that never heals because it's alwaysscratched open again. If we're returned toHungary again, then please not in winter.'(A.D.N., 17 YRS, refugee from Somalia)

Recognised refugees are allowed only6 months' accommodation in a refugeeshelter; this can be extended by another6 months in special cases. After that,homelessness threatens. Besides the lackof integration opportunities, homeless-ness is the major cause of the unendurablesituation for refugees in Hungary. Thisalso creates other problems: without afixed address there is access neither tosocial services nor medical treatment.Life as a homeless person means one isparticularly vulnerable; in many casesmigrants tell of racially motivated assaults

S O C I A L S I T U A T I O N

27

FAMILY G. (FROM AFGHANISTAN)

Mrs G. first fled with her husband andtheir three children from Afghanistan toGreece. Due to the dramatic situation forrefugees in Greece they could not staythere, especially as Mrs G.'s diabetes wasnot being treated in Athens. Fleeing furtherfrom Greece is a complicated and expensivebusiness, so the family separated. The 18-year-old son is living in Landshut/Germanynow, the 14-year-old son in Austria andthe father in the Netherlands. Mrs G., onthe other hand, is under deportation arresttogether with her 7-year-old daughter ina boarding house in Rosenheim/Germany.Before that, Mrs G. And her child wereaccommodated in a deportation centre inHungary and threatened with return toSerbia. For fear of this they made their

way to Germany. Her aim was to get toher son in Landshut.

Mrs G. and her daughter are now indanger of deportation to Hungary. Fromthere, further deportation to Serbia andon to Greece is to be feared. As most ofthe family (mother, daughter M. and theadult son A.R.) are now in Germany, familyreunion is only possible and feasible here.In the event of a return to Hungary thiswould not be guaranteed. Mrs G. is veryill: she suffers from serious diabetes, whichif not treated could have fatal consequences.In addition she suffers from post-traumaticstress disorder. The Bavarian RefugeeCouncil has handed over petitions to theBavarian and German Parliaments againsther extradition. 67

HOMELESS SUDANESE IN SHELTER IN BUDAPEST Photo: UNHCR / B. Szandelszky

and sometimes sexual abuse while theywere living on the streets.

ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES

DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE

Many recognised refugees appear tohave problems receiving social support.And even if they obtain support theycannot survive on it, as it amounts toonly 28,500 HUF (equivalent to about90 euros68). If all conditions are fulfilled,social support can be received for thefirst two years after recognition.69 Theprerequisites for payments up to a furtherfour years are: cooperation with the em-ployment office in the search for workfor at least one year, participation inqualification measures, and in communalservice for at least 3 months. All the re-fugees we interviewed were unable tofulfil these requirements, despite inten-sive efforts.

Migrants repeatedly told us that afterone year at the latest they were givenno further support. All those we ques-tioned who had already fled into anotherEuropean country and had been deportedto Hungary had lost all right to supportand /or did not know how they couldapply for such support.

The main reason is that payment iscoupled to residence at a fixed address,so the homeless have de facto no accessto social services. In consequence the(forced) departure from the initial re-ception centre leads to the loss of socialsupport and, on top of that, rendersmedical cover impossible.

Recognised refugees can, on leavingBicske, apply for a one-off accommoda-tion allowance of 171,000 HUF (about550 euros). However, a rental contractfor a 'suitable' apartment must be pro-duced and the application can only bemade up to 6 months after leaving thereception centre. This payment is regardedas a kind of initial aid.

In addition there is the possibility toapply for a rent allowance, but this isnot paid out long-term up to the amountof the rent to be paid:

‘According to the place the refugees resideat, a competent notary can ascribe the re-fugee a living expenses subsidy, which is tobe financed by the local government. Thissubsidy can be requested four times at anytime once a year during those four years,and the amount is 28.500 Ft [about 90euros] and it can never supersede the actualaccommodation cost amount. This subsidycan be granted only if the receipts for actualmoney transfer intended for covering theaccommodation expenses can be shown.Unfortunately this subsidy is rarely givento refugees, because they do not manage tofind flat owners who are willing to issue areceipt for their rent.’70

The Hungarian Parliamentary Com-missioner for Civil Rights,71 who, as anindependent ombudsman elected by Par-liament, can initiate proceedings againstany state body on the basis of a complaint,informing the organ involved of theillegal practice and ensuring the rightsof the plaintiff, has reported on the pro-blem of homeless refugees in Hungary.Two of his reports are important in thisrespect and are quoted repeatedly in thefollowing. On the one hand he describesthe specific situation of homeless mi-grants and on the other he reports onbreaches of legal rights due to the newHungarian laws and municipal regulationsaffecting the homeless.

In September 2011 Somali refugeesshowed us a 'hotel' where some of themoccasionally spend the night. A bed in afour-bed room costs 2000 HUF there(about 6 euros) per night. No cheaperaccommodation is available in Budapest.So even for this cheapest type of accom-modation, almost double the amount ofthe monthly social support sum has tobe paid. The foreign advisory section ofthe Federal Employment Agency explains,with regard to the living and housingconditions in Budapest:

'Living costs have risen over the lasttwo years – amongst other things, becausethe Hungarian government increased thevalue-added tax to 20% in September 2006.(…) In Budapest, as a rule, very high rentshave to be paid: for a flat, up to 500 eurosincluding heating costs; cheap flats or rooms

can only be found through contacts. Alto-gether, however, the cost of living there isabout 25% lower than in large German ci-ties.'72

Those recognised refugees we inter-viewed were clearly scarcely in a positionto secure their own survival and werehence faced constantly with life-threa-tening situations (illnesses that werenot treated or assaults due to their home-lessness).

HOMELESSNESS OF

RECOGNISED REFUGEES

It appears impossible to obtain officialfigures as to how many homeless refu-gees are living in Hungary at the mo-ment. The Parliamentary Commissionerfor Civil Rights was also unable to pro-vide any:

'In lack of professional institutions whichdeal with homeless foreigners in Hungary,none of the organizations and/or state or-gans had the proper means to release exactdata about how many homeless refugeesare residing in the capital of Hungary.'73

As early as March 2010, the UNHCR pu-blished a research report on homelessrecognised Somali refugees in Budapest,under the title 'Refugee Homelessness inHungary.' 74

Amongst other things, the report comesto these conclusions:

t The refugees with the highest risk ofbeing homeless are those who have oncealready been deported from another Eu-ropean country to Hungary.

t After returning to Hungary, thosequestioned found themselves in a veryvulnerable position again, as they nolonger had access to social support inthe “Pre-Integration Centre” in Bicske.

t Whereas recognised refugees actuallyhad the right to minimum financial sup-port for 2 years after recognition if fol-lowing a language course, they oftenreceived this only after several monthsof waiting following their return to Hun-

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

28

gary.

t The absence of a Somali communityin Hungary was named by those ques-tioned to be a major barrier to integra-tion.

t Trapped in a vicious circle of hope-lessness and with no examples of suc-cessful integration among the Somalimigrants in Hungary, most of those in-terviewed tended to flee onwards toother European countries if they had thechance, with the aim of 'finding a place toeat and sleep, if only for a few months.'

The UNHCR concludes:

' Hungary does not have a legal or policyframework including a strategy that dealsspecifically with the integration of personsrecognized to be in need of internationalprotection. Under the Act LXXX of 2007on Asylum, refugees and persons with sub-sidiary protection have the rights and obli-gations of a Hungarian citizen. They arefurthermore entitled to accommodation,meals and pre-integration services providedat Bicske OIN run Pre-Integration Centrefor the period of time stipulated in Section41 Subsections (1)-(3) of GovernmentDecree 301/2007.(XI.9.) on the implemen-tation of the Asylum Law. Upon leavingthe centre, they are entitled to some specialbenefits including Hungarian language clas-ses up to 520 hours, a subsistence allowanceof HUF 28,500 for a period of two yearsfrom status recognition depending on at-tendance at language courses as well as amonthly housing allowance and establish-ment grant of HUF 171,000. There is nogovernment agency with a statutory re-sponsibility for refugee integration at com-munity level. Once refugees move out ofBicske, they mostly rely on fragmented, un-der-funded and project based refugee supportservices in Budapest run by NGOs. Thesecannot provide solutions to what are

often structural problems of integrationrequiring a strategic, cross-departmentalresponse'75

Menedék, one of the few NGOs offe-ring advice to refugees in Hungary, ex-plained to one of the migrants we inter-viewed that they were unable to fulfil

his request for support; they did nothave the means, and anyway all thehomes for the homeless were full. Asproof, the refugee interviewed showedus the relevant e-mail.

The above-mentioned report by theParliamentary Commissioner for CivilRights summarises:

' My colleagues found that most of therefugees who had returned went back tothe centres because they had no place to goto. They were rejected at the centres andthey did not receive any help how to obtaindocuments they needed, neither had theygot any directions at how to get them. The-refore those refugees who were rejectedfrom going back to the centre, did not haveany identity cards and thus they could notapply to places where they could have hada chance to sleep and therefore they turnedhomeless 76

The UNHCR report ‘Refugee Home-lessness in Hungary’ furthermore high-lights the problem of inadequate nutri-tion, as well as insufficient access to me-dical care for recognised refugees inHungary:

t The majority of those questioned re-ported eating only one meal a day,mostly of low nutritional value (noodlesand rice, no meat). As a result they oftencomplain of dizziness and stomachpains due to hunger. The monthly sup-port is quite insufficient for a balanceddiet.

t Refugees suffered more often thanthe general population from physicaland mental illnesses, due to their expe-riences of hunger, trauma and flight.They often had trouble when seekingmedical help, as they could not speakthe language well enough to communi-cate with doctors. Many of those inter-viewed no longer had an insurance cardafter their return to Hungary. Two ofthem claimed they had to wait sixmonths before being issued with newones.77

NEW RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION

AGAINST THE HOMELESS

SINCE APRIL 2011

In April 2011 new restrictive legisla-tion against homelessness came intoforce. Since then it is forbidden to spendthe night in railway stations or in thestreet. The fine for 'living on the street'is 50,000 HUF (about 165 euros).78 Rum-maging through dustbins entails fines –fines the homeless cannot as a rule pay,so repeated offences result in imprison-ment. The new legislation certainly doesnot lead to more beds for the homeless.

On 2 December 2011 the Parliamen-tary Commissioner for Civil Rights ap-pealed to the Hungarian ConstitutionalCourt, demanding the abrogation of theanti-homelessness legislation and de-crees:

'According to the views of the Parlia-mentary Commissioner for Civil Rights,the new regulation (the Act on the shapingand protection of built environment, 2010)enables the use of boarder police actionson public places against homeless people -thus criminalizing the homeless people –cannot match the Hungarian constitutionaland the European human rights norms.' 79

In particular the complaint by theCommissioner refers to the regulationpassed, after the changes in the law, bythe Budapest Municipality, which foreseesthe imposition of fines to prevent 'per-manent life on the streets.' For repeatedinfringements, fines of even 150,000HUF (about 500 euros) or imprisonment,in the event of inability to pay the fine,are imposed. In his report of July 2011the ombudsman criticised the fact thatthe regulation gave the municipal aut-horities too much power to impose sanc-tions which would constitute infringe-ments of human dignity and the funda-mental rights of people in need of specialprotection. Before his appeal the Com-missioner had unsuccessfully demandedfrom the Ministry of the Interior, aswell as the Budapest Municipality, therepeal of the relevant passages in thenew law and the corresponding decree.

S O C I A L S I T U A T I O N

29

In his report of August 2011 on thecases of ten homeless Somali and Iraqirefugees (presented to him by the Hun-garian NGO 'Mahatma Ghandi'), theCommissioner had come, amongst otherthings, to the following conclusion:

'It is clear that this resolution is purposelymade to chase the homeless away from thecity’ streets, but also that it equals thestatus of a homeless to a crime. From themoment that this regulation was brought,it became illegal to be a homeless in Buda-pest, and it became a must for them to findan accommodation under any circumstances,however, those refugees who did not haveany documents were not in a position to beaccommodated, therefore, without themactually doing any ill, they became not onlyhomeless, but criminals as well. This set ofcircumstances causes a breach of their basicrights, the right to human dignity' 80

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

30

D.A.B. (17 YRS, FROM SOMALIA)

came to Hungary at the end of 2007.Above all his experiences in Hungary haveunsettled him, explains the youngster, whois severely traumatised, according to pro-fessional medical opinion: 'My head givesme a lot of different commands, for ahomeless person is always changing hismind. I've been a nomad ever since I cameto Hungary. In winter we were in neighbou-ring countries. The stations were warmerthere. I've grown very tired. We are totallyunprotected in Hungary, especially in win-ter.

We looked for heating and ventilationshafts to keep warm, but we couldn't evenstay there. We are suffering and going hun-gry in Europe. We're experiencing the samehere as what we left our homeland for.There are young Somalis who have goneinsane from living in Hungary. They wentmad and fled back, to Greece or even Syria.

One managed to get to Somalia but hewas murdered there. D. lived on the streetsin Budapest after his deportation fromSwitzerland. In the Reception Centre atBicske his photo was hanging at the en-trance door, together with those of otherswho had been thrown out in the last fewmonths. 'They hang up your photo so thatwe're told right at the door that there's noroom for us any more,' D. told us. Hebegged for food from tourists and someti-mes fed himself from rubbish bins. 'I oftengot diarrhoea from the waste food. Andthat's an awful situation on the streets!How are you going to find a toilet so quick-ly?' D. also spoke of neo-Nazi assaults. Thebiggest problem, however, was the Hun-garian winter. In winter, he said, he feltmost keenly the lack of a Somali communityin Budapest. 'Another Somali might havesympathy and say, come on, you can staywith me tonight. A friend of mine was re-cently returned from France. He said tome on the Internet, ' I haven't seen a single

Somali here in Budapest. Where have theyall gone?' Hardly anyone can stand it herefor long, because you can't achieve anythingand nobody stays over winter.' When thehomeless were driven out of the rail stationsin Budapest they shifted to the outlyingdistricts and slept in abandoned gardenallotments: 'If we found somewhere tosleep we couldn't stay there the next daybecause the police found out where wewere sleeping and came to move us onagain. We begged in order to get a bit ofmoney so that we could spend a few hoursin an Internet café, where it's warm. Butthey have to close sometime and then wehave to leave there too. There were nightswhen we didn't sleep at all. We ran aroundtill the sun came up.' In the meantime D.is living in a youth centre in Hessia, Ger-many and is receiving psychotherapy. Atnight his panic attacks are especially severe;after 3 or 4 hours' sleep he has to get upbecause of his nightmares.

ACCESS TO THE LABOUR MARKET

Somali migrants in particular haveno community to fall back on in Budapest.For this reason it is almost impossiblefor them, as in fact for many other mi-norities, to find work. Recognised refu-gees may have access to the labour mar-ket, but it is still practically impossibleto get a job. In the course of our researchwe did not meet a single (recognised)refugee who had a job in Hungary, whet-her legal or not, for example, as a daylabourer on a building site

S O C I A L S I T U A T I O N

31

REFUGEE WAITING IN DEBRECEN REFUGEE CAMP Photo: UNHCR / Béla Szandelszky

LABOUR MIGRATION FROM

AND TO HUNGARY

We got the impression that the decrease inthe citizens holding Hungarian passportsin Hungary is not due to emigration buthas demographic causes. In contrast toUkraine, Bulgaria or Romania, relativelyfew Hungarians emigrate. That has conse-quences for the labour market. Whereas inRomania many Asians are working onbuilding sites, in factories and privatehomes due to a lack of workers followingemigration, the labour market in Hungaryis far more dependent on general economicdevelopments. In the boom years, Ukrai-nian workers could easily find jobs in

Budapest, but that is no longer the case.Under the pressure of the EU and the In-ternational Monetary Fund (IMF), butalso for economic reasons, the pensionableage for men and women was raised, as inother East European countries. The so-cal-led 'inactive' part of the population, i.e.early pensioners, invalids and 'black' wor-kers, were under pressure to get jobs. Theresult was that migrants had virtually nochance of finding work in the Hungarianmarket. The number of police checks onblack labour, the reorganisation of agricul-ture, and the crisis in the building sectorhave drastically reduced the migrants'hopes of finding employment.

NO FAMILY REUNION FORRECOGNISED REFUGEES

Family reunions, above all for Somalis,are practically impossible, due to thenon-recognition of Somali passports orsubstitute documents by the Hungarianauthorities.81 This is another reason whyso many Somali migrants choose to fleeonwards, despite recognition as refuge-es.

The UNHCR report ‘Refugee Home-lessness in Hungary’ documents the dra-matic case of a young Somali womanwho left her three children with her ownmother in Somalia to seek protection inEurope. After being recognised as a re-fugee she was told by a social workerthat it would not be possible to bringher children to Hungary, as Hungarydid not acknowledge Somali travel do-cuments. She reports:

'I was in Bicske for 10 days and sawthat I would get nowhere here. If I can'tbring my children here then I would reallyneed to work to be able to feed them in So-malia. I went to Sweden to look for a job.After 2 weeks I got news that two of mychildren had been killed in Somalia.'82

RACIST ATTACKS

Another serious problem which wasrepeatedly reported to us is the racismwidely prevalent in Hungary. Time andagain refugees told us of sometimes se-vere racist attacks. Almost all refugeeswe talked to and who were homeless inHungary have witnessed racist insults,verbal attacks and discrimination. Almostall of them have fallen victim at leastonce to physical attacks based on racismor have had to witness such attacks onfriends. Since 2010 the right-wing partyJOBBIK (Movement for a Better Hun-gary) received 17 per cent of votes andthereby became the third strongest party,Antiziganism in Hungary has increasinglycome under public scrutiny in Europe.Most recently, pogroms against the Romaethnic minority have received interna-tional media attention. And time andagain, black people also encounter racialviolence, as various reports we heardconfirm.

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | q D E F I C I T S | E V A L U A T I O N

32

SITUATION OF ROMA IN HUNGARY

In Hungary there are Roma withHungarian citizenship, as well as othersfrom neighbouring states holding, forexample, Romanian or Serbian natio-nality. Many war refugees from formerYugoslavia were Roma. At present onemust assume that many of those whofled from Kosovo are Roma.

In the Socialist era, in the time offull employment, most Roma were minersor labourers. They often lived under pre-carious conditions near the factories.The Hungarian Roma were among thefirst, in the period of political changeand the resulting de-industrialisation,to end up on the streets. Most Romaonly attended special schools. New sett-lements for them were planned, aboveall with the aim of controllability. TheRoma communities were not includedin the planning of residential areas; thishas not changed till today. However, theRoma are also confronted with new,anti-Roma legislation. The ban on col-lecting wood, which was introduced sometime ago and resulted in thousands oflegal actions, is only one of many exam-ples.

R A C S I S T A T T A C K S

33

WHEN A.D.N. (17 YRS, FROM SOMALIA)

arrived in Hungary in 2008 he stateda false date of birth out of fear; his traffi-ckers were frightened of a harsher sentencefor smuggling in minors and told him tosay he was older. When he was released afew months later from the Bicske campand became homeless, he fled to Finland.There he gave them his correct age, whichwas 15. Ten months later A. was takenout of the Finnish youth centre and de-ported to Hungary. When he arrived atBudapest Airport he was interrogated bythe Hungarian police. 'They asked mewhy I had left. I told them I couldn't sur-vive on the streets. They just threw meout of the airport. I didn't want to leavebecause I had no idea where to go, butthey shouted at me. I was afraid they'dstart beating me so in the end I left wil-lingly. As I didn't know where to go Iwent to the Bicske camp, but the man atthe entrance door said, 'You're not regis-tered here any more, you can't stay!' Buthe seemed to feel sorry for me and said,'You can stay till five in the morning, tillthe other staff arrive, then you have todisappear.' In winter A. Fled once againfrom Hungary: 'You were born in Germany.You know yourselves that you can't sleepin the open in these countries.' This timehe went to France. He lived in a youth

centre again, went to school again, had abed to sleep in and got food. But he wasdeported from France too; the policeevicted him from the youth centre andagain he ended up on the streets in Buda-pest. 'It was now the second time, so Ididn't discuss things so much with theHungarian police as on the first deporta-tion from Finland. I remained quiet be-cause I still had to find a place to spendthe night on the streets before dark.' A.once again spent months living on thestreets. He didn't go to school, seldomfound enough food and slept in cardboardboxes: 'The dogs were the worst thing forme. People take their dogs for a walk andif you are lying in the street sleeping,their dogs just piss on you. The ownerssay nothing and just walk on. Some peoplebawl at us and some kick and hit us orthrow bottles at us if they are drunk.There's a lot of racism in Hungary. Howcan you endure all that, living as a home-less person and even being shouted at,insulted or pissed on?' In the soup kitchenfor the homeless A. was told: 'Blacks goto the back of the queue!' and when histurn finally came, the food was oftengone. He was also once refused a care pa-ckage when the social worker found itwas a black man lying under the cardboardbox.

This report documents systemic faultswith regard to the reception conditionsfor asylum seekers and their right to afair asylum procedure in Hungary.

ILLEGAL ARREST OF THOSE SEEKING

PROTECTION

The majority of asylum seekers andDublin II returnees in Hungary are in-terned in special prison camps. In De-cember 2010 the maximum period ofdeportation arrest was increased from6 to 12 months.

The Hungarian authorities, followingthe Dublin II Regulation, also imprisonfor months severely mentally stressedmigrants seeking protection. This hap-pens even if there is professional medicalevidence confirming their condition.NO EFFECTIVE LEGAL MEANS AGAINST

DEPORTATION DETENTION

Here is practically no legal means ofappealing against imprisonment. It islaid down in the law that detention mustend if it is found that deportation is notfeasible. In practice this regulation ishardly applied. Imprisonment can be or-dered for a maximum of 72 hours withoutwritten instructions from a judge, afterthat, a judge must decide monthly on

any extension of detention. This legalinvestigation is, in the view of theUNHCR, a mere formality, and leads tono proper examination of the reasonsfor arrest. The Hungarian Helsinki Com-mittee knows of no case in which a judgedid not order the extension of impri-sonment.

IMPRISONMENT FOR REFUGEES NEEDING

SPECIAL PROTECTION

Pregnant, elderly, physically or men-tally challenged asylum seekers can bedetained with all the others. Psycho-social care is not available in Hungarianprison camps.

SYSTEMATIC USE OF SEDATIVES DURING

DETENTION

The UNHCR, the Hungarian HelsinkiCommittee and the authors documentstatements made by imprisoned refugeesclaiming that they were systematicallygiven medicines or sedatives. This in-formation was confirmed, according tothe UNHCR, by personnel at the recep-tion facilities where asylum seekers werehoused after their release.

MISTREATMENT BY POLICE IN THE PRI-

SON CAMPS

During the questioning of interneesby UNHCR in September 2011, it wasnoted that ill-treatment by the police inthe prisons is routine. UNHCR reportedthat that ill-treatment and harassmentby the police seemed to occur on a dailybasis.

DUBLIN II RETURNEES REFUSED ACCESS

TO FAIR ASYLUM PROCEDURE

Dublin II refugees sent back to Hun-gary are, as a rule, at once issued with adeportation order, despite their wish toapply for asylum. Migrants looking forprotection who had lodged an asylumapplication during their first stay cannotcontinue with their interrupted appli-cation. Their reactivated application isregarded as a new one. Fresh applicationshave no delaying effect on deportation.The result: Dublin II returnees are wideopen to deportation, even if their asylumapplication was never considered in anEU member state.

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | D E F I C I T S | q E V A L U A T I O N

SUMMARY

Systemic faults in the Hungarian Reception and Asylum Systems require actionLEGAL ASSESSMENT AND DEMANDS

34

THREAT OF CHAIN DEPORTATIONS

TO SERBIA

The danger of chain deportation to Ser-bia exists for Dublin returnees. TheHungarian asylum authority views Ser-bia as a safe third country for migrants.Refugees crossing into Hungary fromSerbia are threatened with deportationback to Serbia without previous consi-deration of their wish for asylum. Thisalso applies to procedures in which theapplicant was previously returned toHungary on the grounds of the DublinII Regulation.

MINORS ARE ARBITRARILY 'MADE OLDER'

Minors returned to Hungary underDublin II rules from other Europeanstates run the risk of being treated likeadults. The Hungarian authoritiesoften ignore documents proving theirage, and assess refugee minors asadults simply on appearances.

NO SUITABLE RECEPTION CONDITIONS

FOR DUBLIN II RETURNEES

Those Dublin II returnees who are notimprisoned have no access to suitablereception facilities: the Dublin II retur-nees, illegally registered as asylum re-

applicants, are not entitled to claim theaccommodation and support normallyoffered to asylum seekers in Hungary.

HOMELESSNESS AND LACK OF PER-

SPECTIVES FOR RECOGNISED REFUGEES

Recognised refugees are entitled to 6months' accommodation in a refugeeshelter in Hungary. This period can beextended by another 6 months in spe-cial cases; after that, homelessness be-comes a threat.

Besides the lack of integration oppor-tunities, homelessness is the main rea-son why refugees escape from theprecarious situation in Hungary to findtheir way to other European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The regular imprisonment of refugees– asylum applicants and Dublin II retur-nees – represents an infringement of Art.5 ECHR (Right to freedom and security).The practice of detaining minors alsobreaches the UN Convention on the Rightsof the Child. Appeals against imprison-ment awaiting deportation are ineffective,as the extension of detention is automa-tically declared. This is a breach of Art.13 ECHR (Right to effective appeal).

The use of sedatives, as well as theabuses in Hungarian prisons, representinhuman and degrading treatment (Art.3 ECHR). These infringements of humanrights must be thoroughly investigatedand eliminated. The European Council'santi-torture committee must take actionin this regard.

As long as recognised or 'subsidiary'refugees are obliged to live on the streetsin Hungary under inhuman conditions,despite their refugee status, and receivinginadequate government support, the EUmember states must hold responsibilityfor this group. In order not to breachArticle 3 of the ECHR, extradition toHungary should no longer be carriedout. Recognised refugees should be en-titled to free movement and equalitywith other citizens of member states.

LEGAL ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF

THE LEADING DECISION OF THE EU

COURT ON 21 DECEMBER 2011

The European Court of Justice (ECJ)has, in its leading decision, accepted themain statements made by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights (ECHR) on 21January 2011, in its so-called M.S.S.Ruling, and declared that it has no blindtrust in the capacity to function and the

S U M M A R Y

35

security of other states where respectfor the fundamental rights of refugeesis concerned.

EU member states must thereforeacknowledge reports – also those pro-duced by NGOs – and make an assess-ment as to whether the requirementsconcerning human rights are respected.

The ECHR also states that the asylumseeker must not be returned to a state,responsible according to Dublin II, if thedanger exists of inhuman and degradingtreatment there. The ECHR also empha-sises that there must be no irrefutableassumption of safety in the other state.Such an assumption is not in accordancewith the fundamental principles of theEU.

The asylum seeker can, in the opinionof the ECHR, bring to bear the 'systemicfaults' in the asylum process, or the re-ception conditions, which are evidenceof 'inhuman or degrading treatment ofthe asylum seekers transferred to thismember state'. This report, the state-ments by the Hungarian Helsinki Com-mittee, together with those of theUNHCR, document the systemic faultsin the reception conditions and asylumprocess in Hungary. The national aut-horities and courts are therefore obligedto forbid the transfer of refugees to

Hungary. The European Commissionmust take action. Considering the de-sperate situation of refugees offered pro-tection in Hungary, it is evident thatthe recognition guidelines have not beenimplemented.

A S Y L U M I N H U N G A R Y | D E F I C I T S | q E V A L U A T I O N

36

To produce this report we have spoken tomany people of varying backgrounds. Wewould heartily like to thank all those whohave supported us. Sometimes we heard ac-counts that shocked us deeply. Above all itwas not easy for those who spoke of theirown experiences, as their stories were oftenvery painful. Many of them took this stepout of solidarity with those who will nextmake their way through Hungary. Wewould at this point like to thank them forplacing their trust in us, and hope this re-port will be of some help in the search forrecognition of their right to a life of dignity– and bring us all a little closer to a Europeof some future time, a Europe open to theworld, one that extends a welcome.

Our further thanks go to a young Afghanrefugee without whom this account of therefugee situation in Hungary would proba-bly never have been written. In July 2010,E.A. had a telephone interview with us; atthat time he was in Sweden, from where hesoon fled to avoid deportation to Hungary,this time travelling to Germany. His odys-sey through Europe is described in the pre-vious section 'Minor unaccompaniedrefugees.' E.A. is still in Germany. The tele-phone interview with him took place at the

start of our research, so this account -exemplifying that of many other migrantswe talked to – ends with the recommenda-tions he then made:

What has to change so that you feel respected?

E.A.: Oh, there are so many things thatneed changing! They must try to under-stand: we have to get rid of all theseDublin regulations. If someone dies itdoesn't interest them; they are only con-cerned about these regulations. Butwhat are regulations created for? Arethey made in order to kill people? Arethey there to drive us all insane? Sen-ding people back to Greek or Hungarianprisons... These regulations must reallybe abolished. Sometimes I think of goingback to Afghanistan, because that mightbe better than Hungary. But I can't sur-vive there either! My hopes all dependon a signature from somebody sitting insome office or other.

I don't even know who it is that will de-cide on my future in his office so-mewhere. And it doesn't only affect me.There are so many fellows in the same

predicament. Dublin II means they canplay football with us, catapult us fromone country to the next, play with usand waste our time. We have only onehope: that there is someone out therewho will listen, who will really under-stand. I think that if the authoritiescan't understand, then others must ex-plain things to them. Thank you, I'm re-ally happy that somebody's listening tous!

I thank you for talking to us!

q A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T | L I S T O F S O U R C E S | F O O T N O T E S

37

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dublin II means they can play football with us...BRIEF INTERVIEW WITH A YOUNG AFGHAN

REPORTS

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, Amnesty International Annual Report 2011 - Hungary, 13 May 2011.

link >

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,AMNESTY,,HUN,,4dce156445,0.html

BORDER MONITORING PROJECT UKRAINE, Access to Protection Denied - Refoulement of Refugees and Minors on the Eastern Borders of

the EU - the case of Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine, November 2010.

link >

http://bordermonitoring-ukraine.eu/files/2010/11/refoulement-report.pdf

EUROPEAN REFUGEE FUND, Country Report: Hungary, updated May 2007.

link >

http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/proasyl/fm_redakteure/INFORMATIONEN/ICF/Laenderberichte/4.Hungary_200705.pdf

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, Buffeted in the Borderland - The Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Migrants in Ukraine, December 2010.

link >

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/16/buffeted-borderland-0

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, Rights on the Line, Human Rights Watch Work on Abuses against Migrants in 2010, December 2011.

link >

http://www.hrw.org/de/reports/2010/12/12/rights-line

HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Stuck in Jail - Immigration Detention in Hungary 2010, April 2011.

link >

http://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1306237449_hhc-20immigration-20detention-eng-final.pdf

HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Serbia as a Safe Third Country: A Wrong Presumption, September 2011.

link >

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e815dec2.html/

HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Access to Protection Jeopardised, Information note on the treatment of Dublin returnees in Hungary,

December 2011.

link >

http://helsinki.hu/access-to-protection-jeopardised/

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Report in case number AJB 1692/2010 (and a related case: AJB 420/2010), Affected

bodies: Ministry of the Interior Office of Immigration and Nationality (Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal), Bicske Reception Centre

(Bicskei Befogadó Állomás), The Municipality of Budapest, August 2011.

link >

http://www.obh.hu/allam/eng/pdf/201001692.pdf

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T | q L I S T O F S O U R C E S | F O O T N O T E S

38

UNHCR, Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, March 2010.

link >

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4bb4b9ac2.html

UNHCR, Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’

Compilation Report - Universal Periodic Review: Hungary, November 2010.

link >

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cd8f31b2.html

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Hungary, 8 April 2011.

link >

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4da56dbf9b.html

WELCOME TO EUROPE NETWORK, Kurzbesuch Ungarn (Short Visit to Hungary): Budapest - Debrecen - Bicske, December 2010.

link >

http://dublin2.info/files/2011/01/Kurzbesuch-Ungarn_12.2010.pdf

PRESS STATEMENTS

BORDER MONITORING PROJECT UKRAINE / PRO ASYL, Kein Zugang zum Asylsystem für Flüchtlinge in Ungarn, 13. January 2011. (No ac-

cess to asylum system for refugees in Hungary)

link>

http://www.proasyl.de/de/presse/detail/news/kein_zugang_zum_asylsystem_fuer_fluechtlinge_in_ungarn/

BUNDESFACHVERBAND FÜR UNBEGLEITETE MINDERJÄHRIGE FLÜCHTLINGE / WELCOME TO EUROPE NETWORK, Dokumentation von

fünf Einzelfällen von afghanischen jungen Flüchtlingen in Ungarn, April 2011. (Report on five cases of young Afghan refugees in Hungary)

link >

http://dublin2.info/2011/04/junge-afghanische-fluchtlinge-in-ungarn/

BUNDESFACHVERBAND FÜR UNBEGLEITETE MINDERJÄHRIGE FLÜCHTLINGE/WELCOME TO EUROPE NETWORK, Ungarn inhaftiert syste-

matisch Asylsuchende - darunter auch Minderjährige, April 2011. (Hungary systematically imprisons asylum seekers – among them, minors)

link >

http://dublin2.info/2011/04/ungarn-inhaftiert-systematisch-asylsuchende-darunter-auch-minderjahrige/

39

LEGISLATION

ASYLGERICHTSHOF ÖSTERREICH, Beschluss vom 27.10.2011 - Spruch S4 422.020-1/2011/4Z.(ASYLUM COURT OF AUSTRIA, Decision of

27.10.2011 – Statement S4)

link >

http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer=ASYLGHT_20111027_S4_422_020_1_2011_00

ASYLGERICHTSHOF ÖSTERREICH, Beschluss vom 31.10.2011 - Spruch S4 422.020-1/2011/5E.(ASYLUM COURT OF AUSTRIA; Decision of

31.10.2011 – Statement S4)

link >

http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=AsylGH&Dokumentnummer=ASYLGHT_20111031_S4_422_020_1_2011_00

ECTHR, Case of Lokpo and Touré v. Hungary, Application no. 10816/10, 20.9.2011.

link >

http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Microsoft-Word-CASE-OF-LOPKO-AND-TOURE-V-HUNGARY.pdf

VG ANSBACH, Beschluss vom 24.05.2011 - AN 11 E 11.30214. (Court of Administration Ansbach, Decision of 24.05.2011)

link >

http://www.asyl.net/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/18567.pdf

VG ANSBACH, Beschluss vom 09.06.2011 - AN 11 E 11.30254. (Court of Administration Ansbach, Decision of 09.06.2011)

link >

http://www.asyl.net/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/18632.pdf

VG HAMBURG, Beschluss vom 11.04.2011 - 19 AE 173/11. (Hamburg Court of Administration, Decision of 11.04.2011)

link >

http://www.asyl.net/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/18463.pdf

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T | q L I S T O F S O U R C E S | F O O T N O T E S

40

MISCELLANEOUS

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, Recommendations to Hungarian presidency: Mid-term review, 01.04.2011.

link >

http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/Doc2011/Letter_to_Hungarian_Presidency_Mid-term_Review_010411.pdf

DIETRICH, HELMUT, Flüchtlingslager an den neuen Außengrenzen - wie Europa expandiert, 24.02.2004. (Refugee camps on the new exter-

nal borders – how Europe is expanding)

link >

http://www.materialien.org/texte/migration/AussengrLager.pdf

KONICZ, TOMAS, Ungarn: „Kultur des Faschismus“, Ein Gespräch mit der Kulturwissenschaftlerin Magdalena Marsovszky über den völki-

schen Ungeist in Ungarn, 03.05.2011. (Hungary: 'Fascist Culture', a discussion with the cultural scientist Magdalena Marsovszky on the dia-

bolical racial mood in Hungary, 03.05.2011)

link >

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34646/1.html

KÖSZEG, FERENC, Die Mauer Europas verschiebt sich gen Osten und die Doppelmoral reist mit, in: Der Schlepper Nr.38, Frühjahr 2007.

(The European Wall moves eastwards and double morality shifts with it, in: The People Trafficker No.38, Spring 2007)

link >

http://www.frsh.de/fileadmin/schlepper/schl_39/s39_34-35.pdf

KÖSZEG, FERENC, Neue Mauern im Osten. Zurückschiebungen und Flüchtlingslager an den EU-Ostgrenzen, in: Wolfgang Benz, Claudia

Curio, Heiko Kaufmann (Hrsg.), Von Evian nach Brüssel, Menschenrechte und Flüchtlingsschutz 70 Jahre nach der Konferenz von Evian, von

Loeper Literaturverlag, August 2008.

(New Walls in the East. Re-deportations and Refugee Camps on the EU's Eastern Borders, in: Wolfgang Benz, Claudia Curio, Heiko Kauf-

mann (Eds.), From Evian to Brussels, Human Rights and Refugee Protection 70 years after the Conference of Evian, by Loeper Literary Pu-

blishers, August 2008)

PRO ASYL, Newsletter No. 170.

link >

http://www.proasyl.de/de/news/newsletter-ausgaben/nl-2011/newsletter-nr-170/

UN NEWS SERVICE, Hungary facing crucial challenges on racism and intolerance, UN expert says, 31 May 2011.

link >

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4decbed42.htm

41

1 Der Standard, 27.5.; FAZ (Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung) 30.5.; Profil 15.6.;

Tages-Anzeiger, Zurich, 5.11.; Format 30.11.

2 Minutes of Proceedings of the Bundes-

tag (Austrian Parliament), 27.11.1998.

3 Cited according to Fortress Europe Cir-

cular Letter, August 1998.

http://www.fecl.org/open/german/d-nb-

9910-tampere.htm. See also Ferenc Kös-

zeg: Neue Mauern im Osten (New Walls in

the East). In: Von Evian nach Brüssel (From

Evian to Brussels). From Loeper Literatur-

verlag (Loeper Literary Publishing House)

2008, p.189.

4 Mr Kanther himself had to resign as a

member of the German Parliament, being

accused of infringing the law on party do-

nations. In 2007 he was sentenced to a fine

of 54,000 euros.

5 Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Latoga-

tas az allamhataron harom szakaszan.

(Visit to three sections of the state border),

26.-30.1.2004. www.helsinki.hu.

6 I reported on my experiences at the Pro-

Asyl conference 'Kein Ort. Nirgends?' ('No

place. Nowhere?') on 8.9.2006 in Tutzing.

An abbreviated version appeared in Der

Schlepper (The People Trafficker) 38,

Spring 2007. A report by Stephan Dünn-

wald: Vor dem Grenzzaun Europas (Before

Europe's Border Fence). In: Hinterland ma-

gazine 4/2007, pp. 6-15.

7 European Committee for the prevention

of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

8 For the statistical data on migration in

Hungary see:

www.bmbah.hu/statisztikak.php.

9 See list of sources at the end of this re-

port.

10 The term 'refugee' is not used in this re-

port in the legal sense, but for all people

forced to leave their homeland. When used

in the legal sense, we refer to 'Refugee ac-

cording to the Geneva Convention on Refu-

gees (GCR)' or 'recognised refugee'.

11 The following journeys were made:

17./18. December 2010 (Budapest, Bicske,

Debrecen), 28.-30. January 2011 (Budapest,

Debrecen), 29./30./31. March 2011 (Buda-

pest, Debrecen), 11.-24. July 2011 (Budapest,

Bicske, Balassagyarmat), 24.-27. Novem-

ber 2011 (Fot), 3.-6. December 2011 (Buda-

pest).

12 The Hungarian Helsinki Committee

(HHC) is a Human Rights NGO that has

been concerned for years with human

rights violations in the Hungarian refugee

camps and prisons. The HHC coordinates a

network of asylum law lawyers. An HHC

lawyer is on hand in the open camp at De-

brecen; Committee lawyers also make

weekly visits to the prisons for migrants

and carry out border monitoring on the

Ukrainian and Serbian borders. Website of

the organisation (in part also in English):

www.helsinki.hu.

13 Border Monitoring Project Ukraine (in

English) see: http://bordermonitoring-

ukraine.eu/.

14 Infomobile in Greece (in English):

http://infomobile.w2eu.net/.

15 OIN statistics in English 2009-2010:

http://www.bmbah.hu/statisztikak_ENG_44

.xls.

16 Refoulement: A crucial element in the

Geneva Convention on Refugees is the so-

called Non-Refoulement principle. Article

33(1) of the 1951 Convention provides: “No

Contracting State shall expel or return

(“refouler”) a refugee in any manner what-

soever to the frontiers of territories where

his [or her] life or freedom would be threa-

tened on account of his [or her] race, reli-

gion, nationality, membership of a

particular social group or political opinion.”

17 Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of

18 February 2003 establishing the criteria

and mechanisms for determining the

Member State responsible for examining

an asylum application lodged in one of the

Member States by a third-country national.

OJ L 50 of 25.2.2003.

18 The OIN (Office of Immigration and Na-

tionality), in Hungarian, Bevandorlasi es Al-

lampolgarsagi Hivatal, BAH) answers to the

Ministry of the Interior. It is the Hungarian

equivalent of the German Federal Office for

Migration and Refugees.

19 Throughout this report we use the term

'detention centres for refugees'. This im-

prisonment may be based on a deportation

order, but this order is issued even before

an asylum application is lodged, and the

application is then secondary with regard

to imprisonment and provides no justifica-

tion for release from detention during the

on-going proceedings. In this sense it is

therefore not really a question of conven-

tional deportation prisons.

20 Source (in Hungarian)

http://www.bmbah.hu/aktualis.php?id=3522

&PHPSESSID=.

21 In the parliamentary elections of April

2010 the former Socialist government was

replaced by a nationalist-conservative Ca-

binet.

22 The changes described here are detai-

led in the following report (in English):

Hungarian Helsinki Committee, National

Report Hungary, in: Dublin Transnational

Project – Final report, May 2011, p.53.

23 German-Hungarian Readmission Agree-

ment, in force since 1.1.99.

24 Tramadol is an opioid (and cheap) pain-

killer. In addition to diminishing pain it has

an anti-depressive effect. The side-effects

are sedation, sleepiness, blurred vision and

confused thinking. The withdrawal from

opioids is a very long process; even a year

later side-effects such as sleepiness and

hallucinations occur. (Source amongst ot-

hers, wikipedia.de).

25 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, National

report Hungary, in: Dublin Transnational

Project- Final report, p. 54.

26 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, National

report Hungary, in Dublin Transnational

Project – Final report, p.54.

27 These were in the following locations

(from April to July 2010): Baja, Csongrád,

Debrecen, Eger, Salgótarján, Sopron, Szé-

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T | L I S T O F S O U R C E S | q F O O T N O T E S

42

kesfehérvár, Tatabánya, Zalaegerszeg.

28 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Immigra-

tion Detention in Hungary 2010, April 2011.

29 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, National

report Hungary, in: Dublin Transnational

Project – Final report, p.54.

30 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Immigra-

tion Detention in Hungary 2010, April 2011.

31 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Immigra-

tion Detention in Hungary 2010, April 2011.

32 Welcome to Europe Network, Kurzbe-

such Ungarn (Short visit to Hungary):

Budapest – Debrecen – Bicske, December

2010.

33 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Immigra-

tion Detention in Hungary 2010, April 2011.

34 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Immigra-

tion Detention in Hungary 2010, April 2011,

pp.11-12.

35 Welcome to Europe Network, Kurzbe-

such Ungarn (Short Visit to Hungary):

Budapest – Debrecen – Bicske, December

2010.

36 From a letter by Henrike Janetzek,

UNHCR regional office Nuremberg, on 31

January 2012 to the lawyer Schlung-Muntau

in Frankfurt.

37 Letter from Henrike Janetzek, UNHCR

regional office Nuremberg on 31 January

2012 to lawyer Schlung-Muntau in Frank-

furt.

38 From a letter by Henrike Janetzek,

UNHCR regional office in Nuremberg on 31

January 2012 to the lawyer Schlung-Muntau

in Frankfurt.

39 Paragraph 7.

40 Paragraph 22.

41 Paragraph 24.

42 DiePresse.com of 13.1.2012: http://die-

presse.com/home/panorama/oesterreich/7

23580/Strassburg-stoppt-erstmals-Ab-

schiebung-nach-Ungarn-.

43 Dublin Transnational Project:

http://www.dublin-

project.eu/dublin/Files/ECHR-Interim-

measure-against-the-transfer-of-an-asylu

m-seeker-from-Austria-to-Hungary.

44 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January

2003 laying down minimum standards for

the reception of asylum seekers.

45 Federal Association for Unaccompanied

Child Refugees/ Welcome to Europe Net-

work, Hungary systematically imprisons

asylum seekers – including those under

age, April 2011.

46 Their collar bones were thereby X-rayed

and their teeth examined.

47 BAMF file reference: 5453564-423 and

5501277-273.

48 See htpp://w2eu.net/2010/10/26/hungary-

imprisons-minors-after-dublin2-deporta-

tion/.

49 From a letter by Henrike Janetzek,

UNHCR regional office Nuremberg, on 31

January 2012 to lawyer Schlung-Muntau in

Frankfurt.

50 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, National

report Hungary, in: Dublin Transnational

Project – Final report, p.55.

51 From a letter by Henrike Janetzek,

UNHCR regional office Nuremberg, on 31

January 2012 to lawyer Schlung-Muntau in

Frankfurt.

52 All figures derive from the English-

language Final Report of the Dublin Trans-

national Project – Final report, May 2011.

53 Welcome to Europe Network, Kurzbe-

such Ungarn (Short visit to Hungary):

Budapest – Debrecen – Bicske, December

2010.

54 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, National

report Hungary, in: Dublin Transnational

Project – Final report, p. 55.

55 Cited amongst other things in the follo-

wing decision of the Austrian Asylum Court:

Asylum Cort of Austria, Decision of

27.10.2011 – Ruling S4 422.020 – 1/2011/4Z.

56 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Access to

Protection Jeopardised – Information note

on the treatment of Dublin returnees in

Hungary, December 2011.

57 Cited among other things in the following

ruling of the Austrian Asylum Court: Asy-

lum Court of Austria, Decision of 27.10.2011

– Ruling S4 422.020-1/2011/4Z.

58 Border Monitoring Project Ukraine/ Pro

Asyl, Kein Zugang zum Asylsystem für

Flüchtlinge in Ungarn (No access to asy-

lum system for refugees in Hungary), 13.

January 2011.

59 Border Monitoring Project Ukraine, Ac-

cess to Protection Denied – Refoulement of

Refugees and Minors on the Eastern Bor-

ders of the EU – the case of Hungary, Slo-

vakia, and Ukraine, November 2010.

60 UN High Commissioner for Refugees,

Submission by the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees for the Office

of the High Commissioner for Human

Rights' Compilation Report – Universal Pe-

riodic Review: Hungary, November 2010.

61 Human Rights Watch, Buffeted in the

Borderland – The treatment of Asylum

Seekers and Migrants in Ukraine, Novem-

ber 2010.

62 Source: Article on the Hungarian news

portal origo.hu under the title 'Hungary, big

problem' – Magyarország kapujában várják

a csodát a harmadik világ nyomorgói,

15.9.2011, available under:

http://www.origo.hu/nagyvilag/20110914-

szerbia-arab-es-azsiai-menekultek-a-sza-

badka-melletti-erdoben-.html and the

television report on MTV Videotar, 15.9.2011,

available under:

http://videotar.mtv.hu/Videok/2011/09/15/19/

Menekultaradat_Szabadkan__rettegnek_a_

lakok.aspx.

63 'Hungary, big problem' – Magyarország

kapujában várják a csodát a harmadik világ

nyomorgói, 15.9.2011, available under:

http://www.origo.hu/nagyvilag/20110914-

43

szerbia-arab-es-azsiai-menekultek-a-sza-

badka-melletti-erdoben-.html.

64 Link to the video:

http://mindennapi.blog.hu/2011/11/19/kifus-

tolt_menekultek_szabadkan?utm_source=

ketrec&utm_medium=link&utm_content=2

011_11_20&utm_campaign=index.

65 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Serbia

As a Safe Third Country: A Wrong Pre-

sumption, September 2011

66 Ibid.

67 The case of the G. family is documented

in detail on the website of the Bayrischer

Flüchtlingsrat (Bavarian Refugee Council) :

http://www.fluechtlingsrat-bayern.de/fami-

lie-ghafari.html

68 Exchange rate in early 2012.

69 Directive on implementation of the Asy-

lum Law, Number 301/2007, (XI.9), Section

52 (1).

70 Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil

Rights, Report in case number AJB

1692/2010 (and a related case: AJB.

420/2010), Affected bodies: Ministry of the

Interior Office of Immigration and Nationa-

lity (Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hiva-

tal), Bicske Reception Centre (Bicskei

Befogadó Állomás), The Municipality of

Budapest, August 2011.

71 In Hungary, the position of Parliamen-

tary Secretary for Civil Rights, as it is de-

signated there; in other countries the

function is described as 'ombudsman'; is

held by Dr Maté Szabo since 2007. The fol-

lowing reports referred to here were pro-

duced by him. 'Ombudsman' according to

the definition of the International Lawyers'

Association: 'An institution founded on the

constitution or legislature or Parliament

and led by an independent official of high

standing responsible to the legislature or

parliament. He investigates on his own aut-

hority the complaints of the persons who

appeal to him with regard to matters con-

cerning the authorities, government offici-

als, employers or other independent

organisations. He has the power to initiate

measures for the correction of infringe-

ments of the law and produce reports.' NB:

This is not an original citation, but a trans-

lation of the German citation. Original refe-

rence: Caiden: International Handbook of

the Ombudsman, Evolution and Present

Function, 1983. p. 44).

72 Source: http://www.ba-auslandsvermitt-

lung.de/lang_de/nn_2820/DE/LaenderEU/U

ngarn/Arbeiten/arbeitenknoten.html__nnn

=true (All data 2008 - conversion according

to exchange rate of August 2008).

73 Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil

Rights, Report in case number AJB

1692/2010 (and a related case: AJB

420/2010), Affected bodies: Ministry of the

Interior Office of Immigration and Nationa-

lity (Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hiva-

tal), Bicske Reception Centre (Bicskei

Befogadó Állomás), The Municipality of

Budapest, August 2011.

74 UN High Commissioner for Refugees,

Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, March

2010.

75 UN High Commissioner for Refugees,

Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, March

2010.

76 Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil

Rights, Report in case number AJB

1692/2010 (and a related case: AJB

420/2010), Affected bodies: Ministry of the

Interior Office of Immigration and Nationa-

lity (Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hiva-

tal), Bicske Reception Centre (Bicskei

Befogadó Állomás), The Municipality of

Budapest, August 2011.

77 UN High Commissioner for Refugees,

Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, March

2010.

78 Sources (in Hungarian): http://hvg.hu/it-

thon/20110427_hajlektalan_szabalysertes_k

ozgyules and http://szocialismunkas.free-

blog.hu/archives/2011/04/30/

79 Source:

http://www.obh.hu/allam/eng/index.htm –

Entry of 8.12.2011

80 Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil

Rights, Report in case number

AJB1692/2010 (and a related case: AJB

420/2010), Affected bodies: Ministry of the

Interior Office of Immigration and Nationa-

lity (Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hiva-

tal), Bicske Reception Centre (Bicskei

Befogadó Állomás), The Municipality of

Budapest, August 2011.

81 Compare Appendix1 of the Hungarian

government decree No. 328/2007 (XII.11.).

82 UN High Commissioner for Refugees,

Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, March

2010.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T | L I S T O F S O U R C E S | q F O O T N O T E S

44

MARC SPEER

is a graduate sociologist working atthe headquarters of the Bavarian RefugeeCouncil. He has concerned himself formany years with the issue of refugees inEastern Europe and is, amongst otherthings, active in the Border MonitoringProject Ukraine. Above and beyond thathe is on the board of the federal workinggroup Asylum in the Church and the as-sociation bordermonitoring.eu. In addi-tion he is doing postgraduate work atthe University of Göttingen on the subjectof transit migration through Ukraine.

MARION BAYER

has been working for many years onan honorary basis for the church's socialwork in refugee support in the Main-Kinzig region. Since 2009 she has tra-velled regularly to Greece and there do-cumented above all the living conditionsof refugees who have been returned toGreece on the basis of the Dublin II Re-gulation. Since the end of 2010 she hasvisited Hungary on several occasions,as her work involved increasing contactswith refugees from Afghanistan, Eritreaand Somalia who were returned to Hun-gary, or threatened with return, on thegrounds of Dublin II.

L A Y O U T

MATTHIAS WEINZIERL

is a freelance graphic designer and amember of the Bavarian Refugee Coun-cil.

www.matthiasweinzierl.de

q A U T H O R S

45

The registered charity bordermoni-toring.eu was founded in Munich in2011. At the heart of the association'sactivities lies the analysis of the policies,practices and events in the Europeanborder control system and in migrantmovements. For this purpose the as-sociation brings together scientific re-search, political commitment, criticalpublic relations work and concrete sup-port for refugees and migrants. Theassociation thereby contributes towardschanges in the realities on the bordersand in their consequences for Europeansociety.

In times of increasing European ring-fencing and rigorous deportation poli-cies, the rights of refugees are threa-tened. PRO ASYL is an independent hu-man rights organisation fighting for therights of persecuted people in Germanyand the rest of Europe. More than 15,000persons are already members of thePRO ASYL support association Friendsof PRO ASYL. Besides public relationswork and lobbying activities, researchand support for initiative groups, it isalso the association's task to offer helpto refugees in their asylum hearingsand provide concrete help in individualcases. At the same time, PRO ASYLconsistently participates in current po-litical debates regarding German andEuropean refugee policies.

u Prison camp for refugees | v Closed screening centre | w Half-open refugee campw Open refugee camp

> WWW.BORDERMONITORING.EU WWW.PROASYL.DE

RUMÄNIEN

UKRAINESLOWAKEIÖSTERREICH

SERBIENKROATIEN

SLOWENIEN