The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a joint judgment concerning three applicants: two Afghan nationals and a Syrian national. All three entered Hungary irregularly or overstayed legal permits, were denied the opportunity to seek asylum, and were summarily removed to Serbia under Hungary's automatic removal regime established by section 5(1b) of the State Border Act.
Despite varying circumstances—including hospitalisation due to serious injuries in two cases—the applicants were expelled without any substantive examination of their individual claims for international protection. The applicants alleged violations of the prohibition of collective expulsion (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4), the right to an effective remedy (Article 13), and, in two cases, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court reiterated its established case-law (e.g., Shahzad v. Hungary) finding Hungary's system of automatic removals to Serbia to be incompatible with the Convention. Despite prior CJEU and ECtHR rulings, Hungary continued to expel individuals without individual assessment.
In H.Q.'s case, the Court rejected the Government's argument that his expulsion was lawful due to the availability of the so-called "embassy procedure" for asylum applications via Hungarian embassies. The Court noted that H.Q. had entered Hungary lawfully with a residence permit and that no individual assessment was conducted before his removal, amounting to a "collective" expulsion
In Z.A.'s and A.S.A.'s cases, both were expelled without formal decisions, despite expressing their intention to seek asylum, including to medical staff and police. The Court found the "embassy procedure" lacked adequate safeguards, was insufficiently regulated, and did not provide genuine or effective access to asylum. Consequently, their expulsions also violated Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
Article 3 (Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment)
The Court recalled the State's duty to assess the risks of refoulement and the adequacy of asylum procedures in third countries prior to removal. The Hungarian authorities failed to conduct any such assessment in H.Q. and A.S.A.'s cases, violating Article 3 (Prohibition of Inhuman of Degrading Treatment)
The Court found that Hungary’s domestic legal framework did not provide effective remedies to challenge removals under section 5(1b) of the State Border Act. Removals were immediate, lacked suspensive effect, and judicial review was either unavailable or ineffective, constituting a breach of Article 13 read with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
Structural Concerns and Article 46 (Binding Force of Judgments)
The Court identified systemic deficiencies arising from national legislation, which had facilitated over 150,000 removals in 2022 alone. Despite prior judgments, Hungary maintained practices incompatible with the Convention, including under the recent decree of 28 November 2024. The Court urged Hungary to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent further collective expulsions and ensure genuine access to international protection.
Just Satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court awarded non pecuniary damages and costs to all three applicants.
The judgment reinforces the prohibition of collective expulsions and highlights the necessity for effective, accessible asylum procedures. Hungary is required to revise its practices and legal framework to comply with the ECHR and ensure respect for fundamental rights at its borders.
Click here to read the full case judgement.