Our new information update focuses on how Hungarian asylum provisions on exclusion from international protection are still not compliant with EU law, despite CJEU Ahmed judgement (C‑369/17).
In summary, the infringement of EU law centers around the following issues:
1. Persons committing a “serious crime” can be excluded from both types of international protection based on the same provision (Section 8(5) of the Asylum Act). This is contrary to the Qualification Directive. The latter requires the crime to be “particularly serious” [Article 14(4)(b) read together with Article 14(5)] with regard to refugees, and to be “serious” with regard to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status (Article 17(1)(b));
2. Inappropriate transposition of Article 14(4)(b) of the Qualification Directive as the condition “to constitute a danger to the community” is not transposed as a cumulative condition in Section 8(5) of the Asylum Act;
3. Lack of individual assessment and discretion of the asylum authority with regard to all the circumstances of the case in determining the seriousness of a crime as the reason for exclusion from international protection contradicts the jurisdiction of CJEU (Ahmed, B and D, Lounani judgments); and
4. Non-transposition of Article 14(6) of the Qualification Directive: The rights enshrined in Article 14(6) of the Qualification Directive and provided by the interpretation of the CJEU in the M,X,X case are not provided to those refugees who are excluded from protection based on Section 8(4) and 8(5) of the Asylum Act.
You can read the update here.