EU court orders Hungary to pay €200M lump sum plus daily penalties for non-compliance with asylum judgment News
495756 / Pixabay
EU court orders Hungary to pay €200M lump sum plus daily penalties for non-compliance with asylum judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union on Thursday ordered Hungary to pay the European Commission a lump sum of €200 million and a penalty payment of €1 million per day of delay due to noncompliance with a previous asylum and migration judgment.

This decision follows 2020’s Commission v. Hungary, in which the court ruled that the country had failed to fulfill its obligations regarding the provision of international protection and the removal of third-country nationals staying illegally. The court found that Hungary had restricted applications for international protection to the border transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, detained applicants for international protection in those transit zones without observing the guarantees stipulated in EU Directives 2013/32 and 2013/33, removed third-country nationals staying illegally without following the procedures and safeguards laid down in Directive 2008/115 and failed to observe the right of the applicants to remain in its territory pending the final decision on the appeal against the rejection of their applications.

On Thursday the court found that Hungary had not taken sufficient measures to ensure compliance with the 2020 judgment. First, the court said, it is impossible to submit protection applications within Hungary since the country requires applicants to apply within the transit zones, which have been closed. Second, Hungary has not put an end to the unlawful removal of third-country nationals staying illegally in its territory. Third, the conditions set out in Hungarian law for the exercise of the right of applicants for international protection to remain in Hungarian territory remain unclear.

The court also noted that Hungary’s conduct transferred its responsibility to other member states, undermined the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, and was not in accordance with its duty of sincere cooperation.