Dublin – Hongarije Fiche
( Update 11 augustus 2014)
Introductie
Het BCHV wordt vaak geconsulteerd met de vraag om objectieve informatie te verlenen over de situatie voor
bepaalde vervolgingsrisico's in landen van herkomst van asielzoekers ('COI' – country of origin information). De
juristen van het BCHV vallen hierbij terug op bestaande rapporten van internationale en niet-gouvernementele
organisaties, UNHCR Guidelines, experten of andere bronnen op het terrein.
Deze fiche bevat een selectie rapporten en enkele pertinente verwijzingen betreffende de asielprocedure in
Hongarije en de problemen waarmee de asielzoekers geconfronteerd worden welke aan dit land worden
overgedragen in toepassing van de Dublin II Reglementering.
Deze nota en de uitgevoerde selectie is echter niet exhaustief en ontslaat de praktijkjurist niet om over te gaan tot
een integrale lezing van de vermelde rapporten alsook bijkomend onderzoek te voeren overeenkomstig de
eigenheden van de asielzoeker. De standpunten weergegeven in deze rapporten zijn uitsluitend deze van de
auteur/organisatie maar reflecteren niet noodzakelijkerwijs deze van het BCHV.
De fiche verwijst vooreerst naar recente rapporten omtrent de implementatie van de Dublin II Verordening in
Hongarije en de observaties van UNHCR. Vervolgens wordt dieper ingegaan op specifieke juridische thema’s
(detentie van asielzoekers, opvangcondities in gesloten centra, minderjarigen, procedurele problemen, toegang
tot medische zorg, klimaat van xenofobie) waarbij concrete, recente rapporten aangehaald worden welke van
belang kunnen zijn bij de individuele ondersteuning van cliënten. In het laatste hoofdstuk tenslotte wordt
verwezen naar – nationale en Europese – rechtspraak.
Algemene
informatie
betreffende
de
toepassing van de Dublin II Verordening en de
asielprocedure in Hongarije
ECRE, Dublin II regulation, Lives on Hold, European Comparative Report, February 2013,
http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/56-ecre-actions/317-dublin-ii-regulation-lives-on-hold.html
Dit rapport is de resultante van een samenwerking tussen Forum Refugies-Cosi, ECRE, Hungarian Helsinki
Committee en hun nationale partners. Ze bevat een comparatief onderzoek inzake de toepassing van de Dublin II
Verordening in verschillende EU lidstaten (m.n; Oostenrijk, België, Bulgarije, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Griekenland,
Hongarije, Italië, Slovakije, Spanje, Zwitserland en Nederland.) Het rapport bevat tevens verwijzingen naar
rechtspraak terzake in de respectievelijke landen.
Dublin Transnational Project – European network for technical cooperation on the application of the
Dublin II Regulation - Hungary: http://www.dublin-project.eu/dublin/Hungary
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
Op deze webpagina kan algemene info teruggevonden omtrent de asielprocedure en toepassing van de Dublin
II Verordening in Hongarije. Van belang zijn de informatiebrochures welke werden opgesteld – in verschillende
talen – voor asielzoekers welke geconfronteerd worden met een overdracht naar Hongarije in het kader van hun
Dublinprocedure.
AIDA – Asylum Information Database : http://www.asylumineurope.org/
Op deze webpagina kan info teruggevonden worden omtrent de asielprocedure, opvangvoorwaarden en detentie
in verschillende EU lidstaten (Oostenrijk, België, Bulgarije, Duitsland, Frankrijk, Griekenland, Hongarije, Italië,
Malta, Nederland, Polen, Ierland, Zweden en Verenigd Koninkrijk). De website bevat nationale rapporten maar
tevens is het mogelijk een vergelijkend landenonderzoek te voeren op basis van een aantal geselecteerde
criteria.
MIGSZOL - Migrant Solidarity Group of Hungary: http://www.migszol.com/
Op deze webpagina kan informatie teruggevonden omtrent het Hongaars asielbeleid, detentiecentra in Hongarije
en het integratiecontract voor erkende vluchtelingen. Tevens bevat de webpagina een link naar verschillende
actoren (asielinstanties, NGO’s etc) die ter zake actief zijn op het terrein.
Rapport UNHCR
UNHCR, Hungary as a country as asylum – Observations on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees
in Hungary, April 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f9167db2.html
Deze paper bevat een analyse van de huidige beschermingssituatie voor asielzoekers en vluchtelingen in
Hongarije vanaf begin 2012 als antwoord op een aantal vragen van verschillende EU lidstaten. Het rapport focust
hierbij op verschillende praktijken zoals toegang tot grondgebied, toegang tot asielprocedure, detentie van
asielzoekers, opvangcondities van asielzoekers, behandeling van minderjarigen en xenofobie.
Detentie van asielzoekers
MIGSZOL - Migrant Solidarity Group of Hungary, http://www.migszol.com/refugee-camps--detentioncenters.html .
Op deze webpagina kan u, naast de informatie betreffende open centra voor vluchtelingen te Hongarije ook
gedetailleerde info terugvinden omtrent verschillende bestaande detentiecentra. De webpagina maakt een
onderscheid tussen Immigration Detention en Asylum Detention. Volledigheidshalve kan ook gewezen worden op
de anti-detentiecampagne die Migszol opstartte in het voorjaar van 2014 en hierover een blog bijhoudt.
“These detention centers that are in practice jails for asylum-seekers, are run by the OIN that employs armed
security guards to “protect the order inside the jails”. According to a statement from July 2013 regarding the
detention by István Ördög, the director of the asylum directorate at the OIN, “the asylum-seekers who will be
detained for the maximum of six months will be the rare odd-one outs”. Despite this, many of the asylum-seekers
are detained for the maximum time of 6 months here. This is the case especially with those people who do not
want to return “voluntarily” to their country of origin for the very reason that they have well-founded fear from
punishment, torture or death. The local courts in those municipalities where detention centers are located may
prolong the detention every two months, blindly accepting the OIN’s requests for the prolongation and without
considering
any
alternatives
for
their
detention.
The social and health services in these asylum jails are much poorer than in the immigration jails. The reason for
this is that in the immigration jails the social workers and the psychologists of the Menedék Association are
2
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
present, but the rush of opening these new jails did not allow NGO’s to apply for projects to be able to provide
services also in the asylum jails.”
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, Statement upon the conclusion of its visit to Hungary (23 September - 2 October
2013), October 2013,http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13816&LangID=E
Dit persbericht werd verspreid naar aanleiding van het recente bezoek door de UN Working Group on Arbitrary
aan verschillende detentiecentra te Hongarije. Deze working groep bezocht ook twee detentiecentra voor illegale
migranten en asielzoekers te Nyírbátor en Békéscsaba.
“The Working Group has been informed that in practical terms, there are many issues raising concerns of
various violations despite the current legislation providing for certain positive measures. The issue of
prolonging the detention of an asylum seeker and the lack of proper judicial review were consistently
raised during interviews. Although the law provides for a complaint or an objection which can be
submitted against a detention order, an important tool against challenging a detention that may be
arbitrary, this right is note often explicitly communicated to those who are being detained. This is further
complicated by language difficulties faced by detainees who are of various different nationalities.
Furthermore, when the lawyer representing the person in detention files a complaint against the
detention, there was a system of extending the detention without proper regard for the lawyer’s
submission and the individual circumstances of the detainee. In the last year, around 8000 such
submissions for release were made, out of which only three were successful. Hence, the lack of effective
legal remedy against detention orders and their prolongation is worrying as it has resulted in detentions
for periods that can last up to 12 months. The regime for asylum seekers in places such as Nyírbátor for
instance seemed to be tougher than its next door regime for migrants awaiting deportation. It was often
unclear how persons were selected as asylum seekers and who would be placed in the alien policing jail.
In some instances, a person who was seeking asylum was placed in the alien policing jail without proper
reasoning or justification.”
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Brief information note on the main asylum related legal changes in
Hungary as of 1 July 2013, 28 Juni 2013, http://helsinki.hu/wpcontent/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1July-2013.pdf
Deze nota omvat een kort overzicht van alle fundamentele asielgerelateerde wetswijzigingen welke op 1 juli 2013
in werk zijn getreden in Hongarije. Deze nationale wetswijziging beoogt de hervorming van de Opvangrichtlijn te
implementeren. Het Hungarian Helsinki Committee benadrukt hierbij dat de hervormingen een afzonderlijk
detentieregime voor asielzoekers introduceren, dat de juridische herziening van immigratie en asieldetentie
verzwakt en het recht op beroep in asielprocedures, alsook slagen de hervormingen er niet in om adequate
opvang te voorzien.
“The amendments to the Asylum Act entering into force on 1 July 2013 provide extensive grounds for the
detention of asylum-seekers under a separate legal regime (other than immigration detention), the socalled “asylum detention”.(…) As a more favourable provision compared to the Recast Reception
Conditions Directive, it should be noted that asylum-seeking unaccompanied minors cannot be detained.
However, no other categories of vulnerable asylum-seekers are excluded from detention. The maximum
period of asylum detention will be 6 months. The amendment provides for the possibility of detaining
asylum-seeking families with children for up to 30 days. The HHC recalls that this is contrary to the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular against its “best interest of the child” principle, as
well as to the guidance of the European Court of Human Rights” (P. 2-3)
“It raises further serious concerns that there are no separate legal remedies against the asylum detention
order since the OIN’s decision on detention cannot be appealed. The lawfulness of detention can only be
challenged through an automatic court review system, performed with 60-day intervals by the same
district courts that are also responsible for reviewing immigration detention cases. According to the HHC’s
experience, the remedy offered by these courts proved to be seriously ineffective in reviewing immigration
detention, by approving 99% of immigration detention orders issued by the OIN in recent years.” (P. 3)
3
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
PRO-ASYL, Refugees between arrest and Homelessness – Report on year-long research up to February
2012, Maart 2013, http://bordermonitoring.eu/files/2012/11/BM_Hungary_English.pdf
Dit rapport bevat informatie omtrent detentieregimes (locaties, redenen, voorwaarden,….), behandeling van
asielzoekers met mentale problemen en minderjarige asielzoekers in Hongarije.
OSAR, Stop aux renvois en Hongrie, september 2012, http://www.fluechtlingshilfe.ch/actualite/communiquesde-presse/stop-aux-renvois-en-hongrie?set_language=fr
« Les rapports des organisations de défense des droits humains sont clairs: les requérants d’asile
renvoyés en Hongrie sont systématiquement emprisonnés et maltraités; on leur administre de force des
calmants dans les prisons. »
UNHCR, Being a refugee, 2011, http://www.unhcr-centraleurope.org/pdf/what-we-do/age-gender-anddiversity-mainstreaming/being-a-refugee-2010.html
“While international law sets restrictions on the detention of asylum-seekers, detention appears to have
become the rule rather than the exception in Hungary. The Hungarian administration considers the
irregular crossing of its border an administrative offence and is increasingly putting asylum-seekers behind
bars even when they immediately declare their intention to claim asylum”. P.30 (…)
“Some guards do not differentiate between groups of clients. In police detention centres in Hungary,
asylum-seekers live side-by-side with alien policing cases including foreign criminals and drug addicts
ready for deportation. Asylum-seekers felt they were sometimes handled as if they were also criminals.
“We are innocent, we haven’t committed any crime, why do we have to sit in jail?” Antar Aissa from Algeria
asked ». (P.32)
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Access to protection jeopardised – Information note on the
treatment
of
Dublin
returnees
in
Hungary,
December
2011,
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/dec/hungary-access-to-protection-jeopardised.pdf
“Based on the expulsion order, the OIN usually orders detention of the asylum-seeker. The maximum
period of detention had been increased in December 2010 from 6 months to 12 months. The immigration
detention of families with children also became possible, for up to 30 days. The amended legislation
provides a legal basis for the detention of asylum-seekers for the entire asylum procedure (both
administrative and judicial review phase), resulting in routine detention for the majority of those seeking
international protection.” (P.4 et 5)
“According to the law, the OIN shall consider whether the execution of the deportation can be ensured with
the application of a compulsory place of residence, before ordering immigration detention. According to the
HHC’s experience, the OIN only cites the relevant provision from the law (the ground for detention) in
detention orders, but does not provide any concrete justification of why the detention of a particular person
meets the legal grounds for detention. Detention orders therefore lack proper individualisation and never
consider any special circumstances or alternative to detention.” (P.5)
“Furthermore, the OIN’s decision ordering detention cannot be appealed. Asylum-seekers returned in the
Dublin procedure are systematically detained and do not have the possibility to have the lawfulness of their
detention examined in an effective manner.” (P.5.)
“Those placed in immigration detention may be obliged to pay for the costs of their detention.” (P.5)
4
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Stuck in jail - Immigration detention in Hungary, April 2011,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,FACTFINDING,HUN,,4ed77ea72,0.html
“Hungarian law qualifies illegal border-crossing as a petty offence (szabálysértés), and not as a criminal
act.13. The vast majority of foreigners held in immigration detention have never committed a crime.
Nevertheless, several immigration jails severely limit the movement of detainees even within the facilities.”
(P.7)
“The UNHCR has also repeatedly criticised this practice in recent years. Such a severe limitation of
movement for several months and without any legal ground results in extreme frustration, which generates
psychological and medical problems, as well as an aggressive attitude. The correlation experienced by the
HHC between the severe limitation of movement and the frequency of violent conflicts, self-harm and
protests is therefore not surprising.” (P.8)
Detentiecondities in gesloten centra
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Brief information note on the main asylum related legal changes in
Hungary as of 1 July 2013, 28 Juni 2013, http://helsinki.hu/wpcontent/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1July-2013.pdf
“In March 2013, the police and the OIN reported that new accommodation facilities had to be opened (or
re-opened). There is significant overcrowding at the main open reception facility in Debrecen (over 1 300
asylum-seekers in mid-June), which led to serious problems (a spectacular deterioration of hygienic
conditions, insects, tension, etc.). A temporary reception facility had to be opened in early June in Nagyfa
(near Szeged), where 300 asylum-seekers can be accommodated in tents. Another reception centre is
expected to be opened in the summer in Vámosszabadi (near Győr and right on the border with Slovakia)
in a former military accommodation facility. The OIN did not consult with NGOs providing direct services
and assistance to asylum-seekers prior to opening of these facilities. It is questionable whether the OIN will
be able to ensure proper reception conditions at these ad hoc facilities.” (P. 4)
UNHCR, Being a refugee, 2011, http://www.unhcr-centraleurope.org/pdf/what-we-do/age-gender-anddiversity-mainstreaming/being-a-refugee-2010.html
“ Several asylum-seekers in Kiskunhalas told the MFT they had no idea why they were in detention and for
how long. Due to scant information and lack of quality interpretation to facilitate communication with the
Hungarian-speaking guards, the Afghans lived in fear of being expelled to the place they had just left and
where they claimed to have faced danger and persecution. Detainees were moved around between
facilities which limited their access to legal counselling. Asylumseekers reported several incidents which
warranted an intervention by superiors: verbal, psychological and even physical harassment including
beatings and racist comments occurred in police detention at Kiskunhalas, and threats by guards in
Kiskunhalas and Nyirbator. The use of a leash when escorting detainees to court hearings, hospital, banks
or post office outside of the perimeters of the detention facility (i.e. public areas) was considered inhumane
and degrading, particularly by Afghan asylumseekers. In Győr in the west of Hungary, guards were
reportedly locking people in cells during the day as a means of punishment and using gas sprays. “We are
treated like dogs,” said Sidiq Azadzoi, an elderly Afghan applicant for international protection. Illiterate
asylum-seekers were found in a particularly vulnerable position as many requests for seeing a medical
doctor or lawyer, for example, are required to be made in writing. “ (P.31)
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Access to protection jeopardised – Information note on the
treatment
of
Dublin
returnees
in
Hungary,
December
2011,
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/dec/hungary-access-to-protection-jeopardised.pdf
“In addition, according to the Asylum Act, those who submit a subsequent asylum application are not
entitled to assistance or accommodation services normally provided to asylum-seekers. As Dublin
5
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
returnees’ asylum claims are considered as “subsequent” applications, (…) those who are finally not
detained do not have access to proper reception conditions after being returned to Hungary (…) (do not
have access to free legal assistance) “ (P.6)
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Stuck in jail - Immigration detention in Hungary, April 2011,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,FACTFINDING,HUN,,4ed77ea72,0.html
“The HHC notes with great concern that the physical and hygienic conditions of immigration detention at
the Baja and Salgótarján jail were in breach of international standards and explicit rules set by Hungarian
law. Detention for several months at such facilities may easily amount to inhuman and degrading
treatment.” P.9
Bij voorbeeld:
“Cells in the new immigration jail in Nyírbátor do not have toilet facilities either. Detainees complained that
during the night, they sometimes had to urinate “through the open window”, due to the lack of any other
possibility (if the guard did not let them out or did not hear the call). “ (P.9)
“In Baja detainees reported food-poisoning because of insufficient hygienic conditions. The HHC monitors
saw that plates were supposed to be washed by the detainees themselves without proper equipments and
detergents that might have caused bacterial infections especially during warm summer months. It was
confirmed by the jail staff that some of the detainees had to be examined by the physician because of the
suspicion of food-poisoning.“ (P.9)
JRS,
Becoming
vulnerable
in
detention,
national
report:
Hungary,
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01584/_res/id=sa_File1/JRSEurope_BecomingVulnerableInDetention.pdf
June
2010,
“The majority of detainees don’t tend to enjoy the food provided by the centre (58%), but a significant
minority (42%) says they do enjoy the food. Of those who do not like the food, 32% attribute their response
to the lack of variety offered, and 23% to the poor quality of food. 64% of respondents say their appetite
has changed as a result of being in detention: when asked in which way, 12 our of 13 valid responses say,
“lost appetite”.” (P. 231)
“According to the head of alien policing jail in Kiskunhalas the problems are weekends, when only canned
food is served and the detainees do not eat that kind of food.” (P. 231)
“According to the observations of HHC lawyers, in alien policing jails the detainees have no opportunity to
make coffee or tea during the day and during the Ramadan no adaptation regarding the meals is made.”
(P. 231)
PARLEMENT EUROPEEN, Conditions des ressortissants de pays tiers retenus dans des centres (camps
de détention, centres ouverts, ainsi que des zones de transit), avec une attention particulière portée aux
services et moyens en faveurs des personnes aux besoins spécifiques au sein des 25 Etats membres de
l’Union
Européenne,
décembre
2007,
p.
119
e.
v.,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2007/393275/IPOLLIBE_ET(2007)393275_FR.pdf
Les conditions d’accueil d’un centre à l’autre varient car chaque responsable de centre édicte son propre
règlement intérieur sans que celui-ci ne soit validé par quiconque.
De manière générale, les constats concernant les centres de rétention sont les suivants :
o « Durée excessivement longue et non justifiée légalement de la rétention.
o Absence d’alternative à la rétention,
6
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
o Régime strict de rétention non justifié (confinement des détenus dans leur cellule, limitation à une heure
de promenade par jour, configuration des locaux semblable à celle des prisons de droit communs),
o Absence d’activité,
o Manque d’information des détenus sur leurs droits,
o Personnel insuffisamment capable d’identifier les personnes vulnérables,
o Caractère pathogène de la rétention » (…) L’enfermement, l’absence de toute activité sociale (TV
uniquement), la longue durée de la rétention, les conditions strictes de rétention (enfermement dans les
cellules), l’impossibilité pratique de communiquer avec l’extérieur (liberté de passer et de recevoir des
appels téléphonique très théorique pour les détenus ne pouvant s’acheter de cartes téléphoniques), le
manque d’information des détenus sur leur droits, l’inefficacité des recours contre la rétention sont
certainement des facteurs créateurs ou aggravant de vulnérabilité , notamment de troubles
psychologiques » (…) « Le médecin du centre de Nyarbator nous a indiqué que les tentatives de suicide
des détenus avaient lieu entre une fois et trois fois par mois. » (…)
De manière générale, les constats concernant les centres de réception pour demandeurs d’asile sont les
suivants :
o « Particulière vulnérabilité de certains groupes (femmes isolées, victimes de traumatismes) de
demandeurs d’asile.
o Caractère excluant du logement en camp constituant un frein à l’intégration.
o Environnement défavorable aux personnes vulnérables (enfants, personnes souffrant de troubles
psychologiques).
o Développement de divers types de violences (violences domestiques, violences sexuelles)
o Absences de documentation et difficultés d’identification de ces violences.
o Insuffisance du nombre de travailleurs sociaux présent dans chaque centre. »
Toegang tot medische zorg in detentie
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Stuck in jail - Immigration detention in Hungary, April 2011,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,FACTFINDING,HUN,,4ed77ea72,0.html
“The HHC monitors experienced in almost all of the visited facilities that detainees were usually examined
by a physician only if they asked for an appointment, thus there was no regular medical control. One of the
detainees in Nyírbátor claimed that he was epileptic, and did not receive any treatment. “ (…)
“In most of the alien policing jails no psychological help was available, even though it is obvious that it
would be of key importance. For instance in Nyírbátor, one of the detainees claimed that even though he
would need regular psychological treatment, he could only see the psychologist once a month, which was
not sufficient. In Tatabánya the detainees were theoretically allowed to consult the psychologist of the
Police, however, they stated that the only thing that had happened after the consultation was that they had
received medication (sleeping pills, tranquilizer, pain killers) from the guards charged with the distribution
of medicaments. Social workers did not visit immigration jails at all, thus no social care was provided. In
the Sopron and Debrecen jails there were no separate cells for those having infectious diseases. “ (P.9)
JRS,
Becoming
vulnerable
in
detention,
national
report:
Hungary,
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01584/_res/id=sa_File1/JRSEurope_BecomingVulnerableInDetention.pdf
Juni
2010
“Majority of detainees reports to be aware of the existence of medical staff in the centre (91%), but the
number of encounters varies: 50% say at least “once per week” or when needed, and 41% say “less than
once per month.” They know that they are meeting with doctors, but they seem unaware whether or not
other medical staff are nurses or not (44% say they meet with nurses, 56% say they don’t). 79% said they
received a medical exam when they arrived to the centre, but this exam may not be very thorough. The
7
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
medical staff uses a language that they understand, but a significant minority (38%) said they don’t
understand the language used by the medical staff.
Average physical health before detention is 7.38 on a 10-point scale.” (…) “Average physical health
during detention is 6.09 on a 10-point scale, or a 1.29-point drop.” (…) “83% responded that their physical
health has likely been negatively impacted while in detention. They likely attribute this response to the
quality of the detention centre facilities, i.e. poor air quality, ambient air temperature, quality of bedding,
etc. “ (P. 229)
“Average mental health before detention is 7.37 on a 10-point scale.” (…) “ Average mental health during
detention is 4.67 on a 10-point scale, or a 2.70-point drop.” (…) “ Their mental health has likely been
impacted while in detention, and they attribute this impact to detention in general, i.e. anxiety and
uncertainty about his personal situation, worries about family, a desire to be free, reports of sadness,
concerns about the poor state of facilities. “ (…) (P. 229)
“Lawyers from HHC reported that detainees in general complain that the doctors usually prescribe them
sleeping pills for any sort of problems. The detainees are taken to the psychologist only when it is an
emergency (e.g. attempt of suicide)”. (P. 230)
Procedurele tekortkomingen
Betreffende de uitwijzingsprocedure en de afwezigheid van schorsend effect
ingeval van een tweede asielaanvraag
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, access to protection jeopardised – Information note on the
treatment
of
Dublin
returnees
in
Hungary,
december
2011,
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/dec/hungary-access-to-protection-jeopardised.pdf
“The Hungarian asylum authority (Office of Immigration and Nationality, OIN) does not automatically
consider Dublin returnees as asylum-seekers. The OIN treats them primarily as unlawful migrants in the
framework of an expulsion procedure, on the ground that – despite being returned in the Dublin procedure
– the returned asylum seekers had no lawful basis to enter and/or stay in Hungary. Prior to registering an
asylum application, the Police issue an expulsion order and a re-entry ban against the asylum-seeker (for
duration of 1-10 years).” (P. 2)
“According to the Administrative Proceedings Act,5 where a final decision in a proceeding requires the
preliminary assessment of an issue where the decision lies with another authority, the authority shall
suspend its proceedings. The application of this provision in the expulsion proceedings of an asylumseeker would mean that the expulsion procedure shall be suspended until a final decision is issued about
the asylum claim.” (P.2)
“In practice, the Police do not suspend the expulsion procedure, just its execution. The staid expulsion
order then serves as a legal basis for ordering the foreigner’s detention.” (P.2)
“The 2010 amendment of the asylum law removed the suspensive effect on expulsion measures of a
second subsequent asylum application, if the OIN or a court in its latest (previous) decision decided that
the prohibition of expulsion on non-refoulement grounds was not applicable.” (P. 3)
“The Director General of the OIN replied”: “The removal of the suspensive effect from subsequent asylum
applications does not result in the violation of the principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Geneva
Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. (…) By breaching the obligation to
cooperate with the authority by leaving for an unknown destination, and by applying for asylum in another
8
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
country, the applicant suggests that he/she does not wish to avail him/herself of international protection in
Hungary. He/she just intends to delay the alien policing procedure.” (P.3)
“The HHC is of the opinion that “punishing” in such manner an asylum-seeker for wishing to seek refuge in
another EU member state rather than in Hungary, unjustifiably undermines the application of the Dublin
system, a cornerstone of which is the principle that all asylum-seekers have the right to have their claim
examined on the merits by one member state.
In addition, the Asylum Act foresees that subsequent asylum applications are no longer free of charge”. (P.
3)
“Thus, asylum-seekers taken back in a Dublin procedure face discriminatory treatment as compared to
other asylumseekers, solely because they had previously left Hungary.”(P.4)
Betreffende het gebrek aan specialisatie van magistraten en het gebrek aan
individualisering bij de behandeling van dossiers
UNHCR, Hungary as a country as asylum – Observations on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees
in Hungary, April 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f9167db2.html
“The asylum procedure, administered by the Office of Immigration and Nationality (Refugee Directorate),
combines the determination of refugee status and of eligibility for subsidiary protection into one procedure.”
(…) “The applicant may request the court to review the decision of OIN. Thus, the Hungarian asylum
system consists of two instances: administrative and judicial. Judges typically are not asylum specialists,
nor are they specifically trained in asylum law.” (P.10)
JRS,
Becoming
vulnerable
in
detention,
national
report:
Hungary,
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01584/_res/id=sa_File1/JRSEurope_BecomingVulnerableInDetention.pdf
Juni
2010,
“Although the foreigner is not entitled to demand the suspension of the alien policing measures involving
deprivation of liberty or to submit an administrative appeal against the decision imposing detention, it is
possible to file an application to the court within 72 hours requesting the review of the legality of the alien
policing measure entailing deprivation of liberty (TCN Act, Section 57(2)). In practice, however, it seems
that courts often render their decisions almost automatically, based on the motion of the alien policing
authority and without duly assessing all the relevant circumstances of the case or the possible applicability
of the principle of non refoulement. Moreover, penal judges of local or county courts, who often do not
have the necessary expertise to make a meaningful assessment of asylum cases and treat alien policing
cases as a ‘branch’ of penal cases, are in most cases assigned to review the prolongation of alien policing
detention measures. This is highly inappropriate, considering the non-penal character of alien policing
cases and especially those of asylum seekers.” (P.223)
Het risico op refoulement en de automatische
toepassing van het concept « veilig derde
land » betreffende Servië
UNHCR, Note on Dublin transfers to Hungary of people who have transited through Serbia - Update,
December 2012, http://www.refworld.org/docid/50d1d13e2.html
Deze nota is een update van het UNHCR standpunt van oktober 2012 welke lidstaten aanmaant om zich te
onthouden asielzoekers terug te sturen naar Hongarije onder de Dublin II Verordening wanneer zij via Servië
dienden te transiteren alvorens hun aankomst in Hongarije. UNHCR erkent in deze huidige nota de vooruitgang in
de asielpraktijk welke Hongarije geboekt heeft en pas daarom zijn voorgaand standpunt aan.
9
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
OSAR, Stop aux renvois en Hongrie, Septembre 2012, http://www.fluechtlingshilfe.ch/actualite/communiquesde-presse/stop-aux-renvois-en-hongrie?set_language=fr
Asielzoekers welke teruggestuurd worden naar Hongarije « risquent fort d’être ensuite refoulés en Serbie,
car les autorités hongroises classent ce pays parmi les Etats tiers sûrs. Mais l’odyssée des indésirables ne
s’arrête généralement pas en Serbie. Les requérants déboutés risquent d’être expulsés à la chaîne dans
d’autres pays de transit, ou dans leur pays d’origine, et exposés ainsi à des persécutions, des tortures ou
à la mort. » (P.1)
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, access to protection jeopardised – Information note on the
treatment
of
Dublin
returnees
in
Hungary,
December
2011,
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/dec/hungary-access-to-protection-jeopardised.pdf
“Usually only asylum-seekers coming from a country that the OIN deems prima facie inadequate for return
(regardless of the individual circumstances of the case) based on non-refoulement grounds are not
expelled to their country of origin (e.g. Somalia). However, they can be expelled to another transit country
(e.g. Serbia, Ukraine) based on the application of a “safe third country” principle and bilateral or EU-level
readmission agreements.” (P.2.)
“The Hungarian practice not only fails to ensure the proper application of the non-refoulement principle, but
it also disregards the current position of the European Commission and the Council on this matter.” (P.4)
Zie ook :
-
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Opinion No. 2/2012 (XII.10) KMK. of the Supreme Court of
Hungary (Kúria) on Certain Questions Related to the Application of the Safe Third Country
Concept, 10 december 2012, http://www.refworld.org/docid/50ee7a732.html
-
ECRE, European countries urged to stop sending back to Hungary asylum seekers who have
transited Serbia, September 2012, http://www.ecre.org/component/news/news/135-europeancountries-urged-to-stop-sending-back-to-hungary-asylum-seekers-who-have-transited-serbia.html
-
BORDER MONITORING PROJECT UKRAINE, Acces to protection denied. Refoulement of
refugees and minors on the eastern borders of the EU. The case of Hungary, Slovakia and
Ukraine, 2010, http://bordermonitoring-ukraine.eu/files/2010/11/refoulement-report.pdf
Minderjarigen
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Report on Border Monitoring Activities in 2012, 7 July 2013,
http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/hel2013_menekulteng_final.pdf
“One of the most important findings was that the HHC and the UNHCR strongly recommend that the
authorities – respecting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – should carry out an individual and
substantive examination in each case to determine the best interest of the child in expulsion procedures
and consider the relevant aspects of child protection in their decisions. The alien policing, asylum and
child-care authorities should co-operate with special services and NGOs. According to the report, in cases
where the child informed the authorities about family members who were in the EU, the Hungarian
authorities failed to verify such family ties and to initiate family reunification. The Dublin II Regulation states
that if the asylum seeker is an unaccompanied child, the State where the asylum seeker’s family is lawfully
present is obliged to examine the child’s asylum application provided that this serves the best interest of
the child. None of the guardians appointed to assist the unaccompanied children challenged their
expulsion orders.” (P. 16)
10
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
PRO-ASYL, Refugees between arrest and Homelessness – Report on year-long research up to February
2012, maart 2013, http://bordermonitoring.eu/files/2012/11/BM_Hungary_English.pdf
“On several occasions during its detention monitoring visits the HHC has witnessed unaccompanied
minors detained in the immigration jails. After checking their files it was noted, that the doctor determined
their age only by looking at their torsos. The way age assessment is carried out in Hungary is highly
problematic.” (P.21)
UNHCR, Being a refugee, 2011, http://www.unhcr-centraleurope.org/pdf/what-we-do/age-gender-anddiversity-mainstreaming/being-a-refugee-2010.html
“An overly simplified age assessment carried out by authorities is putting boys and girls behind bars. The
assessment does not apply the ‘benefit of the doubt’ principle; nor does it reflect the best interests of the
child. At Kiskunhalas, a detention facility in southern Hungary with limited psychosocial and legal
counselling, the officials did not appear to carry out any age assessment. While two Afghan boys claimed
to be 17 years, their age was consistently recorded as being higher by officials. Their asylum applications
were not registered and they were not informed about the possibility to consult a lawyer – both omissions
are at variance with Hungary´s international obligations under the Refugee Convention and the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.” (P. 30)
Xenofobieklimaat en integratiemoeilijkheden
UNHCR, Hungary as a country of asylum – Observations on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees
in Hungary, April 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f9167db2.html
66. “Schools in towns hosting refugee reception Centres tend to resist the enrolment of asylum-seeking
and refugee children, as they do not have the funds to provide the necessary extratutoring for Hungarian
language and cultural orientation, and they lack the skills to raise additional funding as the regulations for
obtaining so-called ‘migrant-norm’ funding are complicated. It would appear they also fear that local
Hungarian parents would take their children out of school if refugee or asylum-seeking children are
admitted.”
69. “Hungary is confronted with high unemployment and poverty rates. Beneficiaries of international
protection therefore face additional challenges in pursuit of self-sufficiency and integration. UNHCR notes
that Hungary has no legal or policy framework for the integration of beneficiaries of international
protection.“
74. “UNHCR has been informed about cases when homeless Somali refugees chose to return to their
country of origin, despite the risk of persecution, torture and other forms of serious human rights violations
upon return, stating that their living conditions were deficient and their life and dignity at immediate risk in
Hungary.”
83. “Overall, Hungary is considered to have adequate anti-discrimination laws, an effective government
complaint agency, and a well-developed civil society. However, UNHCR considers that gaps remain in
certain areas, including for victims of hate crimes and hate speech, and for those facing multiple forms of
discrimination in Hungary”. (…)
86. “Despite legislative advances, such as the Act on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal
Opportunities, and several measures and programmes aimed at the elimination of discrimination,
xenophobia and discrimination remain prevalent in Hungarian society, particularly towards the domestic
Roma population. Roma children in particular are reported to suffer from stigmatization, exclusion and
11
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
socio-economic disparities, notably related to housing, unemployment, access to health services, adoption
and educational facilities because of their ethnic status. “
87. “Political measures and practices to counter xenophobia are still in an embryonic state in Hungary.
According to a public opinion poll carried out by the TARKI110 polling agency from April to June 2011,
32% of the adult population is “openly xenophobic” and would not allow any refugees in the country; 60%
are “implicitly xenophobic” and would allow some refugees, but exclude others and only 8% of the
population is “tolerant”. “
88. (…) Xenophobia in the Hungarian society is reinforced through the negative images in the media which
– when reporting about migration, migrants and refugees – play on stereotypes. Terminology like
“criminals,” “parasites,” “danger,” and “mass influx” is common in reporting on the issue. “
89. “Asylum-seekers and refugees report encountering xenophobia, racism and intolerance on a daily
basis in Hungary. Over several years, UNHCR has found that the local hospital is often not willing to send
an ambulance for patients in the reception centre, forcing management to provide transportation for the
patient with its own vehicles. In one of the localities hosting refugees, the local dentist is not willing to treat
refugees, forcing them to travel approximately 100 km to see a dentist in another town (Szekesfehervar).
The Menedek Association, a local NGO, reports that it regularly encounters racist attitudes when seeking
employment and accommodation for refugees.”
UNHCR, Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, maart 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/4bd59fe96.html
“Respondents repeatedly noted the lack of any prospects in Hungary in terms of access to adequate
housing, education, vocational training or employment or family reunification. “ (P. 13)
“Learning the language and having a basic knowledge of the receiving country are basic requirements for
achieving independence and self sufficiency as well as becoming part of the local community.” (…) “There
are a number of factors that may affect the ability of refugees to learn the language or culture of the
receiving country (…). “With respect to those attending language courses, the majority emphasised that
without access to a secure home or food, they found very difficult to focus on studying Hungarian. (…) The
majority of the respondents claimed that the number of language course hours available (one and a half
hours twice a week) was not sufficient to improve their language skills.” (P.16)
Rechtspraak
Europees Hof van de Rechten van de Mens
-
ECHR
N°2283/12
Mohammed
v.
Austria,
6
juni
2013,
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-120073#{"itemid":["001-120073"]}
-
“In the case of Mohammed v. Austria (application no. 2283/12), dated June 6 2013 the European Court of Human
Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in
conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights; and, that Mr Mohammed’s transfer to Hungary would not violate Article 3.
The case concerned the complaint of a Sudanese national that his forced transfer from Austria to Hungary under
the EU Dublin Regulation would subject him to conditions amounting to inhuman treatment, and that his second
asylum request in Austria did not have a suspensive effect in relation to the transfer order. The Court held that
Mr Mohammed had been deprived of protection against forced transfer in the course of the proceedings
concerning his second asylum application while having – at the relevant time – an arguable claim that his
Convention rights would be violated in case of his transfer. At the same time, the Court found that, in view of
12
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
recent legislative amendments in Hungary improving the situation of asylum-seekers, Mr Mohammed’s
transfer there would not violate Article 3.”
-
ECHR N°13457/11 - Hendrin Ali Said et Aras Ali Said v. Hungary, 23 oktober 2012 en ECHR
N°13058/11
Al-Tayyar
Abdelhakim
v.
Hungary,
23
oktober
2012,
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-113936#{"itemid":["001-113936"]}
“Both cases concerned complaints under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) by asylum-seekers
currently staying at the Debrecen Reception Centre for Refugees (Hungary) about the unlawfulness of
their detention – without effective judicial review – pending the outcome of their asylum claims. The
applicant in the first case, Alaa Al-Tayyar Abdelhakim, is a Palestinian national who was born in 1985. Stopped by
the Hungarian border control at Záhony (Hungary) in July 2010 for using a forged passport, he claimed asylum,
explaining that he came from a refugee camp in Tripoli, Lebanon, where he faced security problems.
The applicants in the second case, Hendrin Ali Said and Aras Ali Said, are Iraqi nationals who were born in 1992
and 1989 respectively. They left Iraq in August 2009 and illegally entered Hungary, where they made a first
asylum attempt before travelling illegally to the Netherlands with the help of traffickers. Intercepted in the
Netherlands, they werethen transferred back to Hungary in September 2010 under the Dublin II procedure. They
claimed asylum, alleging that they had been persecuted in Iraq because of their father’s former service in Saddam
Hussein’s army and their Kurdish ethnicity.”
-
ECHR
N°10816/10
Lopko
et
Touré
v.
Hungary,
20
september
2011
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-106272#{"itemid":["001-106272"]}
,
“The applicants, Paul Thibaut Lokpo and Ousmane Touré, are Ivorian nationals who were born in 1990 and 1984
and live in Budapest and Nyírbátor, Hungary, respectively. They entered Hungary illegally and, arrested in March
2009, subsequently claimed asylum. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), they complained
about the unlawfulness of their detention from April to September 2009 pending the asylum proceedings.”
Nationale Rechtspraak
-
RVV 106.584, 10 juli 2013 : Syrische – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot schorsing bij UDN – Verwerping
-
RVV 106.403, 5 juli 2013 : Afghaanse – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot schorsing bij UDN –
Verwerping
-
CCE 95.084, 15 januari 2013 : Turkse –Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot schorsing en nietiverklaring –
Verwerping
-
RVV 84.290, 6 juli 2012 : Afghaanse – Bijlage 26 quater – Annulatieberoep (na schorsing bij UDN – RVV
81.368) – Verwerping
-
RVV 81.368, 15 mei 2012 : Afghaanse – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot schorsing bij UDN – Ernstige
grond tot schending art. 3EVRM – Schorsing
-
CCE 71.856, 15 december 2011 : Kosovaar – Familie – Bijlage 26 quater - Annulatieberoep tegen
beslissing weigering machtiging tot verblijf op basis van art. 9 ter van de wet van 15 december 1980
betreffende de toegang tot het grondgebeid – Annulatie
-
CCE 69.346, 27 oktober 2011 : Servische en Kosovaar – Roma – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot
annulatie en schorsing – Verwerping
13
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
-
CCE 68.690, 18 oktober 2011 : Guinee – Annexe 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
-
CCE 67.676, 30 september 2011 : Armenië – Annexe 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
-
CCE 67.669, 30 september 2011 : ArmenIë – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
-
RVV 64.267, 30 juni 2011 : Afghaanse – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
-
CCE 59.008, 31 mei 2011 : Armenië – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
-
CCE 58.650, 28 maart 2011 : Irakees – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
-
CCE 58.645, 28 maart 2011 : Kosovaar – Bijlage 26 quater - Annulatieberoep tegen beslissing
weigering machtiging tot verblijf op basis van art. 9 ter van de wet van 15 december 1980 betreffende de
toegang tot het grondgebeid - annulatie
-
CCE 53.888, 27 december 2010 : Kosovaar – Roma - Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en
schorsing – Verwerping
-
RVV 51.251, 18 november 2010 : Syrische – Bijlage 26 quater – Vordering tot annulatie en schorsing –
Verwerping
14
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
Geraadpleegde bronnen
AIDA, Asylum Information Database : http://www.asylumineurope.org/
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, Statement upon the conclusion of its visit to Hungary (23 September - 2 October
2013), October 2013,http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13816&LangID=E
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Brief information note on the main asylum related legal changes in
Hungary as of 1 July 2013, 28 Juni 2013, http://helsinki.hu/wpcontent/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1July-2013.pdf
ECRE, Dublin II regulation, Lives on Hold, European Comparative Report, Februari
http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/56-ecre-actions/317-dublin-ii-regulation-lives-on-hold.html
2013,
UNHCR, Note on Dublin transfers to Hungary of people who have transited through Serbia, October 2012,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/507298a22.html
OSAR, Stop aux renvois en Hongrie, september 2012, http://www.fluechtlingshilfe.ch/actualite/communiques-depresse/stop-aux-renvois-en-hongrie?set_language=fr
ECRE, European countries urged to stop sending back to Hungary asylum seekers who have transited Serbia,
September 2012, http://www.ecre.org/component/news/news/135-european-countries-urged-to-stop-sendingback-to-hungary-asylum-seekers-who-have-transited-serbia.html
MARTIN M., Was the Hungary the first EU country of arrival? Legal responsibility before human rights: a short
story on Dublin, Augustus 2012, http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-195-dublinii-austria-hungary.pdf
UNHCR, Hungary as a country as asylum – Observations on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees in
Hungary, April, 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f9167db2.html
UNHCR, Being a refugee, 2011, http://www.unhcr-centraleurope.org/pdf/what-we-do/age-gender-and-diversitymainstreaming/being-a-refugee-2010.html
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, access to protection jeopardised – Information note on the treatment of
Dublin returnees in Hungary, December 2011, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/dec/hungary-access-toprotection-jeopardised.pdf
HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE, Stuck in jail - Immigration detention in Hungary, April 2011,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,FACTFINDING,HUN,,4ed77ea72,0.html
JRS,
Becoming
vulnerable
in
detention,
national
report:
Hungary,
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01584/_res/id=sa_File1/JRSEurope_BecomingVulnerableInDetention.pdf
Juni
2010,
BORDER MONITORING UKRAINE, Acces to protection denied. Refoulement of refugees and minors on the
eastern borders of the EU. The case of Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Juni 2010, http://bordermonitoringukraine.eu/files/2010/11/refoulement-report.pdf
CPT, Report to the Hungarian Government on the visit to Hungary carried out by the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 24 March to 2 April 2009,
8 juni 2010, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/hun/2010-16-inf-eng.pdf
UNHCR, Refugee Homelessness in Hungary, Maart 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/4bd59fe96.html
15
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
PARLEMENT EUROPEEN, Conditions des ressortissants de pays tiers retenus dans des centres (camps de
détention, centres ouverts, ainsi que des zones de transit), avec une attention particulière portée aux services et
moyens en faveurs des personnes aux besoins spécifiques au sein des 25 Etats membres de l’Union
Européenne.
décembre
2007,
p.
119
e.
v.,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2007/393275/IPOL-LIBE_ET(2007)393275_FR.pdf
16
Het BCHV geniet de steun van het UNHCR, Fedasil, het Impulsfonds en het Europees Fonds voor de Vluchtelingen.
© Copyright 2025 ExpyDoc
