Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 18 - Right to asylum
Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition
Key facts of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court was to decide whether the non-refoulement principle prevented the transfer of an Afghan asylum-seeker X to Hungary which by virtue of the Dublin III Regulation was primarily responsible for examining X’s application for international protection and which had agreed to the transfer. The Court noted that X had arrived in Hungary through Serbia, which Hungary (unlike other EU Member States) considered to be a safe country. It was possible that X is returned from Hungary first to Serbia and further to Afghanistan, without the possibility of having his asylum application examined on the merits in any country. X could lodge an appeal against a negative decision by the Hungarian authorities with a Hungarian court and eventually take the case to the ECtHR. However, it was uncertain whether this was an effective remedy, because of the large number of asylum applications, the difficulties in arranging appropriate legal assistance and interpretation services, and other problems reportedly encountered by asylum-seekers in Hungary.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court studied at large the case law of the CEU and the ECtHR, national judgments of courts in other EU Member States, Hungarian national legislation and recent country reports on Hungary. It noted that although as a rule the transfer under the Dublin III Regulation must be made and the treshold for departing from that rule is high, there were strong grounds for believing that there were systemic flaws in the asylum procedure in Hungary. The Court referred to the principle of benefit of the doubt and to the principle of a human rights-friendly interpretation of the law and ruled that in uncertain cases the decision must be made in favour of the appellant. Considering the up-to-date country information it could not be reliably ascertained at present that X’s transfer to Hungary would not be in violation of Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR. The Court emphasised, however, that the outcome of the case could be different, once new information is available, particularly concerning the classification of Serbia as a safe country, following possible changes in the implementation of Hungarian asylum legislation, through the decisions of the ECtHR or otherwise. The Court concluded that X’s asylum application was to be examined in Finland and referred the case back to the Immigration Service.
According to Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and the case law of the CEU the transfer of an asylum-seeker is impossible in a situation where there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in the receiving Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter.
Although the threshold for deviating from the principle, that is, the transfer of an asylum-seeker as specified in the Dublin III Regulation, is high, the case law and other materials, taken into account by the Supreme Administrative Court, strongly suggest that systemic flaws referred to in Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation can be identified in Hungary. Considering also the principle of benefit of the doubt, which is significant in the evaluation of proof under refugee law, as well as the principle of a human rights-friendly interpretation of the law, the case must in this uncertain situation be resolved in favour of the appellant. Considering the up-to-date country information it is currently not possible to reliably ascertain that the applicant’s return to Hungary is not in violation of Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Supreme Administrative Court emphasises, that the outcome of the assessment of transfers to Hungary could be different, once new information is available, particularly concerning the classification of Serbia as a safe country, following possible changes in the implementation of Hungarian asylum legislation, through the decisions of the ECtHR, or otherwise.
Vastuunmäärittämisasetuksen 3 artiklan 2 kohdan ja unionin tuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännön mukaan siirto ei kuitenkaan tule kyseeseen sellaisessa poikkeuksellisessa tilanteessa, jossa on perusteltuja syitä katsoa, että vastaanottavan valtion turvapaikkamenettelyyn ja hakijoiden vastaanotto-olosuhteisiin liittyy sellaisia systeemisiä puutteita, jotka saattavat johtaa Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklassa tarkoitettuun epäinhimilliseen tai halventavaan kohteluun.
Vaikka kynnys edellä tarkoitetusta lähtökohdasta eli vastuunmäärittämisasetuksen mukaisesta siirrosta poikkeamiseen on korkea, viittaavat edellä käsitellyt oikeuskäytäntö ja muu aineisto vahvasti siihen, että Unkarissa on havaittavissa vastuunmäärittämisasetuksen 3 artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitettuja systeemisiä puutteita. Kun lisäksi otetaan huomioon pakolaisoikeudellisessa näytönarvioinnissa merkityksellinen benefit of the doubt -periaate sekä perus- ja ihmisoikeusmyönteisen laintulkinnan periaate, on asia tässä epävarmassa tilanteessa ratkaistava muutoksenhakijan eduksi. Ajantasainen maatietous huomioon otettuna tällä hetkellä muutoksenhakijan asiassa ei voida luotettavasti varmistua siitä, että hänen palauttamisensa Unkariin ei riko Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklaa tai Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 3 artiklaa.
Korkein hallinto-oikeus korostaa, että Unkariin palauttamista koskeva tilanne saattaa olla arvioitavissa toisin sikäli kuin etenkin Serbiaa turvallisena maana koskevaan kysymykseen tulee uutta selvitystä Unkarin turvapaikkalainsäädännön soveltamiskäytännön muuttamisen tai Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisujen myötä taikka muulla tavoin.
