Refugees hungary report update 2014

HUNGARY:REFUGEES BETWEEN DETENTION AND HOMELESSNESS

Update and supplement to the report of march 2012

14 BM English Ungarn Update_Layout 1 07.05.14 14:59 Seite 1

2

PUBLISHERbordermonitoring.eu e.V.

Friedenstr. 10, 81671 Munich, Germany

[email protected]

Förderverein Pro Asyl e.V

Postbox 160624, 60069 Frankfurt am Main,

Germany

[email protected]

RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTENTMarc Speer

AUTHORSMarion Bayer, Marc Speer

EDITORSMiriam Leitner,

Alena Thiem, Angelika Calmez

LAYOUTMatthias Weinzierl

PRICEEUR 3,oo

TITEL'Pre-Integration Camp' in Bicske in July 2013

DATE OF PUBLICATIONOctober 2013 (in German) /

April 2014 (English Translation)

I M P R I N T

IMPORTANT NOTE:

This report is a not updated translation of the Ger-man version which was released in October 2013.Conseqeuntly, the research for this report covers aperiod up to the end of July 2013. Since that date,there have been some significant changes:

There are no tents anymore in the Bicske camp.

The support system for people who received a protection status has fundamentally changed. Since the 1.1.2014 the affected persons are signing a so-called “integration contract”.

In January 2014 the Dublin-II convention was replaced by the Dublin-III convention.


I N D E X

3

INTRODUCTION

THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM

REFUGEE PROTESTS IN BUDAPEST AGAINST

THREATENED HOMELESSNESS

FINANCIAL SUPPORT AFTER DEPARTURE FROM BICSKE

ACCESS TO STATE MEDICAL CARE

CRIMINALISATION OF HOMELESSNESS IN HUNGARY

COMPULSORY LABOUR BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL

RACISM, PROTESTS BY LOCAL RESIDENTS AND HATE CRIME IN HUNGARY

THE ODYSSEY OF SAMIR E.

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ANNEX

04

08

12

16

20

24

28

30

34

35

37

38


ON THE PRODUCTION OF THIS SECOND REPORT

4

Over a year has passed since we publis-hed an initial report in March 2012 onthe situation of refugees1 in Hungary.2

Homelessness and detention are the twooverriding problem areas that have re-mained decisive for the living conditionsof refugees in Hungary. Their predica-ment is now becoming increasingly dra-matic, as the number of applications forasylum has risen alarmingly over thepast few months. Up to June 2013 therewere over 10,000 new applicants3 (bycomparison: in 2012 a total of only2,155 asylum applications were registe-red4, in the year 2011 there were 1,693and in 2010 only 2,1045 ).

According to a press article in theHungarian media, in June 2013 only alittle over 2,500 people were accommo-dated in Hungarian refugee camps.6

These facilities are hence hopelessly over-crowded: emergency accommodation hasbeen set up in tents and gymnasiumsand serious disturbances have occurredin the camps due to the restricted con-ditions. Even in the so-called 'Pre-Inte-gration Camp' in Bicske in which, untila few months ago, only recognised refu-gees and others entitled to protectionwere accommodated, a 'tent city' waserected for refugees.7 A further tentcamp was opened in Nagyfa at the be-ginning of June to cater for up to 300asylum-seekers.8

Considering the already over-burdenedreception system in Hungary, the ques-tion arises: where are the 7,000 or morerefugees who have not been put up inthe camps? It can be assumed that theyhave travelled on to other Europeancountries and it is likely that most ofthem will apply for asylum (or have al-ready done so) and therefore slip intothe Dublin return deportation procedure.Just as it is unclear what the futureholds for these people, it can also beeasily forecast that a massive increasein returns from various European coun-tries would bring about the final collapseof the already overstrained asylum andreception system in Hungary.

The neo-Fascist party Jobbik is takingfull advantage politically of this situation;several torchlight marches have beenheld to protest against the preliminaryreception camp in Debrecen.9 Seriousdisturbances inflamed by Jobbik havealso occurred in Vámosszabadi (nearGyör), where a new (open) camp is beingplanned.10 One chapter in this report istherefore devoted to the increasing racismtowards refugees in Hungary.

Our first report, together with othersources, among them the UNHCR andthe NGO Hungarian Helsinki Committee,led to a number of German courts beco-ming increasingly critical about the ques-tion as to whether deportations to Hun-gary were permissible. The Appendixtherefore provides a list with a selectionof decisions and rulings against returnsto Hungary. The list will also be constantlyupdated after publication of this re-port.11

We met the refugees interviewed forthis report in Budapest, Bicske, Debrecenand Balassagyarmat. However, we alsohave reports from refugees who fled on-wards from Hungary. Of particular in-terest is a group of about 70 Afghanswho left Hungary in June 2013 andsought refuge in Karlsruhe.12 Before thisthey had campaigned over several monthsfor better living conditions in Hungary,as they had all been granted at least'subsidiary protection' in Hungary, butthat offered no perspective at all for thefuture. As asylum-seekers they at leasthad a roof over their heads, but after re-cognition they were left with only aperiod of reprieve in the so-called 'Pre-Integration Camp' in Bicske, before beingreleased into homelessness. Their effortsat integration provide a good examplefor understanding that for many recog-nised refugees and others entitled toprotection it is practically impossible tolive on a long-term basis in Hungary.We have therefore included a chronologyof their protests in our report. We wouldlike to thank the Migráns Szolidaritásgroup13 for providing the photos fromthese protests and allowing us to printthem.


I N T R O D U C T I O N

5

Besides the evaluation of writtensources, this second report is based onsupplementary research conducted, moreclosely than before, with human rightsorganisations and refugees on the ground.Much of the report of March 2012 stillapplies, so we have made an effort torefer regularly to chapters in the firstreport so as to avoid unnecessary repe-tition. The research for this report coversa period up to the end of July 2013; de-velopments since then could not thereforebe included here.

In this second report we have alsoavoided concentrating on quantitativedata collection, but have instead con-ducted in-depth interviews over a lengthyperiod of time in different locations,both with individual refugees and ingroups. Above all we interviewed refugeesfrom Afghanistan and Somalia; however,for this report we talked more extensively

than before to people originating fromother countries. Among those who hadcome to Hungary there are many whohad already tried – often for years – toflee from Greece. Many have thereforealready had the experience, before comingto Hungary, of fleeing to a country wit-hout finding refuge there.

Because people interviewed for thisreport were promised anonymity, codenames are used in this report. Tran-scriptions of the audio recordings ornotes of the interviews are available.

In this second report, too, we do notinvestigate the situation of the Roma inHungary (nor of those with non-Hun-garian nationality, for example, thosefrom Kosovo). In consequence of an in-creasing anti-Roma pogrom atmospherein various (East-) European countries,the Roma are also exposed in Hungary

to massive discrimination, hate and vio-lence. Besides exposure to the anti-Romaracism evident in large sections of thepopulation, they are increasingly thetarget of discriminatory legislation. Thechapter on the so-called 'Kozmunka',the compulsory communal employmentprogrammes, only indicates but cannotfully portray how drastic the discrimi-nation experienced by the Roma in Hun-gary has become.

ACCOMMODATION OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS IN THE GYMNASIUM OF THE PRE-INTEGRATION CAMP AT BICSKE IN JULY 2013


The current tightening-up in the lawshave made updating of our first reporta matter of urgency. As from 1 July2013, changes in the law, loosely basedon EU guidelines, came into force inHungary, and regulated among otherthings the detention of asylum-seekers.The UNHCR, as well as the HelsinkiCommittee, have expressed their concernabout the new legislation, as the reasonsfor detention are so vaguely defined thatit is to be feared that the detention ofasylum-seekers will once again become

the norm.14 The consequences of thesechanges in the law can still only be gues-sed at; the first cases of detention afterreturns from other EU states have, ac-cording to our sources of information,already taken place. In the followingchapters we deal especially with thechanges in legislation. Further develop-ments are documented on the websitewww.bordermonitoring.eu. A summaryof the main findings of this report ispresented in the concluding chapter. <


6

NUMBER OF ASYLUM APPLI-CATIONS IN HUNGARY IN THEFIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2013:

January: 300February: 672 March: 1 350 April: 1 966May: 3 337June: 4 116

Total: 11 741

Source: UNHCR

ACCOMMODATION OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS IN THE GYMNASIUM OF THE PRE-INTEGRATION CAMP IN BICSKE IN JULY 2013

PRE-INTEGRATION CAMP IN BICSKE IN JULY 2013


FOOTNOTES

1 The term 'refugee' is not used in the legal sense in this report, but for all persons forced to leave their homeland. Where the word is used

in the legal sense, the term 'recognised refugee' or 'persons entitled to protection' will be applied. Persons still involved in an asylum proce-

dure are referred to as 'asylum-seekers'.

2 Bordermonitoring.eu and Pro Asyl: Hungary: Refugees between Detention and Homelessness. Report on a year's research up to February

2012. Online: http://content.bordermonitoring.eu/bm.eu--ungarn.2012.pdf.

3 Cf. Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Brief information note on the main asylum related legal changes in Hungary as of 1 July 2013, page 3.

Online: http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1-July-2013.pdf.

4 Cf. press release by Eurostat on 22.3.2013. Online: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STAT-13-48_de.htm.

5 Cf. English-language statistics of the OIN. Online: htpp://www.bmbah.hu/statisztikak_ENG_49.xls.

6 Cf. kisalfold.hu of 18.6.2013.

Online: http://www.kisalfold.hu/gyori_hirek/menekultabor_-_ujabb_fejlesztes_maradna_el_vamosszabadin/2338124/.

7 Cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiRihM8HtSo.

8 Cf. Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Brief Information note on the main asylum related legal changes in Hungary as of 1 July, 2013, page 4.

Online. http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1-July-2013.pdf.

9 Cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OE1iVLk0A4.

10 Cf. index.hu of 16.6.2013. Online: http://index.hu/belfold/2013/06/16/a_jobbik_tiltakozik_a_vamosszabadi_menekulttabor_ellen/.

11 A list of current reports and court decisions on Hungary can be found under:

http://bordermonitoring.eu/2012/03/zur-situation-der-fluchtlinge-in-ungarn/.

12 Cf. press release of 26.6.2013: 70 refugees from Afghanistan seek refuge in Karlsruhe from deportation to Hungary. Online: http://fluecht-

lingsrat-bw.de/files/Dateien/Dokumente/INFOS%20-%20EU-Fluechtlingspolitik/2013-06-26%20PM-w2eu-Ungarn-Karlsruhe-26-06-2013.pdf.

13 Migráns Szolidaritás is a group that since November 2012, in solidarity with the migrants in Hungary, regularly publishes information on

the current situation on their website: http://migszol.com/.

14 Cf. ECRE Weekly Bulletin14 – June 2013: Hungary passes legislation allowing widespread detention of asylum-seekers.

Online: http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/755.html.


7


'I am a refugee, not a criminal. Why didI come here? Only to ask for asylum. Iwas in a closed camp with my wife andchildren. The first thing refugees seehere is the prison. They come from coun-tries where there is war, and battles takeplace. My son asked me: 'Why are wehere? This is a prison. Why are there somany police here?' We have had bad ex-periences in Afghanistan. My son seesthe police and thinks: 'Danger! He seesthe policemen and thinks: 'Maybe some-body is going to die.' (M.R., from Afgha-nistan)15

In our report of March 2012 we des-cribed in detail the detention systemthat asylum applicants were subjectedto at that time.16 We documented thatnearly all applicants were detained formonths. This was justified formally bythe Hungarian authorities with the ar-gument that an expulsion order existed,which was issued in nearly all casesbefore the asylum application had beenofficially registered. Even people whohad been returned from other states un-der the Dublin II Regulation were threa-tened once again at that time with de-tention on their return. In addition tothis, with reference to the Helsinki Com-mittee, we criticised the legal proceduresfor detention assessment:

'Local courts in principle make iden-tical decisions in all cases, the reasoningis short and sharp and shows a lack ofadequate assessment of the facts pre-sented and of any individual treatment.Long years of experience by the HHCdemonstrate that – in contrast to most

other European countries – the extensionof deportation detention is automaticin Hungary'.17

This conclusion is impressively sup-ported by figures that the European Re-fugee Council (ECRE) has published,with reference to the UNHCR: 'Anothermajor concern for UNHCR is the effecti-veness of the judicial review which re-examines the lawfulness of the detention.According to a survey conducted by theCuria, the highest court in Hungary, outof some 5000 court decisions made in2011 and 2012, only three decisions dis-continued immigration detention, whilethe rest simply prolonged detention wit-hout any specific justification'.18

We also described the conditionsunder which people were detained, espe-cially the administration of tranquillizersand widespread physical ill-treatmentof prisoners by their guards. This wasalso highlighted by a UNHCR reportpublished shortly after ours:

'Permanent detention facilities havebeen renovated and apply a strict prisonregime, even where residents have onlycommitted the minor offence of irregularentry or stay. Detained asylum-seekersvehemently complained about the violentbehaviour of the guards. While not everyguard behaves in an inappropriate man-ner, some particular guards and indeedentire shifts allegedly harass detaineesverbally and even physically. Detainedasylum-seekers also complain about ha-ving been systematically givendrugs/tranquillizers, resulting in some

of them becoming addicted by the endof their detention term.'19

A German television unit (NDR) alsovisited Hungary in Spring 2012. Theywere not given permission to enter anydetention camps for asylum-seekers, sothat only the exterior of the facilities atNyírbátor could be filmed. The filmingwas stopped by police officers after onlya few minutes. However, shortly beforethis some refugees were able to contactthe camera team: 'When you leave they'llbeat me up here. Why did they stick mein prison? I'm an asylum applicant!' criedone of the detainees through the barredwindow. Two Afghans were interviewedfor the TV report after they had beenfreed from detention and so could speakopenly: ' I can't defend myself if thepolice imprisons me. What can I doabout it?’

No one listens to me in this country.(…) When I asked for permission to goto the toilet the policemen just lookedat the ceiling and wouldn't let me go.Why? They abused me so much. Theysaid I should stick my dick in my mouthand drink my urine.' A 17-year-old re-ported: ' The security service and policetook me to a room to beat me up. Fouror five men. They are the police and cando whatever they want. (…) What can Ido about it? I live like an animal here'. 20

Due to the massive criticism fromvarious sources such as the HungarianHelsinki Committee, the UNHCR andthe European Commission, as well asmany international court decisions that

THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM

8


made unlawful returns to Hungary underthe Dublin II Regulation, the Hungarianlaws as from 1 January 2013 were mo-dified in two decisive instances: firstly,asylum-seekers were no longer placedin detention if they immediately appliedfor asylum when arrested; secondly, Dub-lin II returnees were in principle nolonger detained.21 These changes in thelegal framework were also mentionedin a UNHCR statement in December2012 and it was further pointed outthat the number of asylum-seeking de-tainees had decreased in Hungary from171 in February 2012 to 30 in December2012.22

However, as from July 2013 new le-gislation came into force that will amongother things have far-reaching effectson the detention of asylum-seekers. Onthe basis of the EU reception guidelinesa new form of arrest was introduced forasylum-seekers that is legally differentfrom deportation detention and can lastup to six months. Since 1 July 2013 thefollowing grounds for detention apply:23

For the verification of the appli-cant's identity and nationality.

The asylum-seeker absconded orhinders the processing of the asylumprocedure in any other way.

In order to obtain the informationnecessary for the processing of the asy-lum claim, if there are serious groundsto presume that they would delay orhinder the procedure or would ab-scond.

In order to protect the public orderand national security. If the claim hasbeen submitted at the airport.

The applicant has repeatedly failedto fulfil his/her obligation to attendprocedural acts and thus hinders theprocessing of a Dublin procedure.

As the Helsinki Committee stressesin its statement, the Hungarian govern-ment had in particular adopted rules onthe detention of asylum-seekers fromthe draft of the EU Reception ConditionsDirective, which had not even beenpassed at the time. Changes in favourof asylum applicants (for example, ofgroups requiring special protection) were

on the other hand seldom implemented,or not at all. Minors can not be detainedunder the new law, but this does notapply if they are arrested with their pa-rents. In this case detention for up to30 days can follow, which according tothe Hungarian Helsinki Committee notonly contravenes the UN Children'sRights Convention but also legislationpassed by the European Court of HumanRights (ECtHR). It is further to be fearedthat the Hungarian authorities will con-tinue to make excessive use of the existingrules allowing for the detention for asy-lum applicants, as was already the casewell into the year 2012. It is of particularconcern that the new law foresees noindividual means of appeal. A judicialinvestigation of detention is conductedexclusively within the framework of anautomatic examination at 60-day inter-vals.24

This examination is made by the samedistrict courts that in the past almostnever repealed a detention order, asshown at the beginning of this chapter.25

In summary, important grounds existfor the assumption that the ECtHR wouldin all probability regard this as a breachof the European Convention on HumanRights, for example, of Article 5 ('Rightto Liberty and Security') or Article 13('Right to an effective remedy'). TheUNHCR also shares this view:

'According to the UNHCR, under thenew Hungarian law detention would beapplied as a tool for migration control,penalising unlawful entry and preventingunlawful onward movements, whichwould also run counter to the stipulationsin the European Convention on HumanRights (Right to Liberty and Security,Article 5), which would mean that a suitcould be filed before the European Courtof Human Rights'.26

T H E R E - I N T R O D U C T I O N O F T H E D E T E N T I O N S Y S T E M

9

REFUGEE PRISON ON PREMISES OF RECEPTION CAMP IN DEBRECEN



10

REFUGEE PRISON IN NYÍRBÁTOR

Statements on the detention condi-tions cannot yet be made at this point.However, the well-documented abusesoccurring in the past indicate that, underthe new law too, the prison conditionswill be unsatisfactory and possibly aninfringement of Article 3 of the ECHR('Prohibition of inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment '). Especiallyagainst the background of the dramati-cally increasing application figures, whichin the first six months of 2013 alone

have already multiplied five-fold com-pared with those of the previous (com-plete) years, it can still be assumed that,in view of the hopeless overcrowding,conditions will become even worse. Thereis further cause to fear that Dublin IIreturnees (at least, if they are still involvedin legal proceedings in Hungary) haveclearly fulfilled the detention criterionof 'Absconding' or 'Hindering/Delayingthe asylum procedure' simply by travellingonwards. It cannot be judged at this

point in time whether detention will asa rule be applied in practice, but thelegal framework for it was no doubtcreated on 1 July 2013. <



11

FOOTNOTES

15 Online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50KhK5CqHY.

16 Cf. bordermonitoring.eu and Pro Asyl: Hungary: Refugees between Detention and Homelessness, p. 12 ff.

17 Hungarian Helsinki Committee: National report Hungary, in: Dublin Transnational Project, Final report, p. 54.

Online: http://www.dublin-project.eu/dublin/content/download/1072/20354/version/4/file/RAPPORTFINAL-GB.pdf.

18 ECRE Weekly Bulletin 14 – June 2013: Hungary passes legislation allowing widespread detention of asylum-seekers, p.3.

Online: http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/755.html.

19 UNHCR: Hungary as a country of asylum. Observations on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees in Hungary, p. 19. Online:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f9167db2.html.

20 Report in German television magazine 'NDR Weltbilder', broadcast on 24.4.2012.

Online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP1Xi_s2o60&feature=youtu.be.

21 Cf. Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Brief Information note on the main asylum related legal changes in Hungary as of July 1, 2013, p. 1. On-

line: http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1-July-2013.pdf.

22 Cf. UNHCR: Note on Dublin transfers to Hungary of people who have transited through Serbia – update. Online:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/50d1d13e2.html.

23 Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Brief Information note on the main asylum related legal changes in Hungary as of 1 July, 2013, p.2. Online:

http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC-update-hungary-asylum-1-July-2013.pdf.

24 The Helsinki Committee's statement runs literally as follows: 'It raises further legal 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 chal-

lenged through an automatic court review system, performed with 60-day intervals (…)'. Online: http://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC-

update-hungary-asylum-1-July-2013.pdf.

25 Cf. ebd., p. 3.

26 ECRE Weekly Bulletin 14 -June 2013. Online: http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/755.html.


'We saw no other choice than staying to-gether and seek a common solution ab-road. We have seen that the Europeanrules on asylum are not working, thereis no common treatment and care forasylum-seekers and refugees in Europe.We will not accept this system. Our po-litical resistance is movement. We haveto do that for our children'.27 Refugeesannounced this in a declaration on theircollective flight onwards from Hungaryto Germany in June 2013.

In November 2012 refugees (mainlyfrom Afghanistan) had already protestedfor two days before the Hungarian Par-liament for integration opportunities inHungary. A number of (English-language)videos covering these protests are avai-lable on the Internet.28 A crucial concernof the refugees was that they had beenissued with residence permits by Hungarybut that these offered no real protection.'We cannot eat documents, nor sleep orlive in them'.29 The following chronologyof protests is closely linked to statementsmade by the refugees themselves.

Parallel to the public demonstration,the refugees turned to the HungarianMinistry of the Interior, the migrationauthority OIN and the Hungarian ForeignMinistry in order to draw the attentionnot only of the public but also the deci-sion-makers to the hopeless situationof refugees in Hungary. In response tothe protests, the Ministry of the Interiorsimply extended the residence period inthe so-called 'Pre-Integration Camp' inBicske until 31 March 2013, but other-wise took no action.30

In January 2013 the refugees thereforeapproached the UNHCR and sought itssupport in this dispute. On 19 February2013 they also filed a suit with the EUCommission against Hungary. Numerousinfringements of EU guidelines werelisted in this complaint. On the day thesuit was filed there was once again aprotest demonstration before the Euro-pean Union offices in Budapest to drawattention to the issue.31 A video aboutthis protest can be found in the internet.32

Up till now the refugees have receivedno answer to their complaint from theCommission.33

On 19 March 2013 supporters of theMigráns Szolidaritás group wrote a letterto the OIN and the Ministry of the Inte-rior to highlight the situation of almost100 refugees who were to leave the campin Bicske by 31 March. In the letter theydescribed the main problems of the re-fugees and made a series of suggestionsas to how refugees could be providedwith adequate accommodation after theirstay in the camp.34

However, these pressing questionson proper housing remained unanswered.There were two meetings with represen-tatives of the OIN, but according to therefugees taking part, in neither of themcould any perspectives be offered tothose who were to leave the so-called'Pre-Integration camp'. The only solutionproposed by OIN was accommodationin shelters for the homeless.35

On 28 March 2013, one day after themeeting with OIN, the refugees wereinformed that it was possible to moveinto homeless shelters: 'Apart from theobvious fact that we would be unable tointegrate into Hungarian society whileliving in homeless shelters, it turnedout that these facilities had room fornot more than ten of us, and no room atall for children',36 the refugees stated intheir declaration.

The following week they paid a visitto the shelters together with supportersfrom the Migráns Szolidaritás group.37

'We could see with our own eyes thatthese facilities offered no solution toour accommodation problem',38 the re-fugees said in their statement.

At the same time, refugees in thegroup were repeatedly threatened byOIN officials that they would be removedfrom the camp by force and separatedfrom their children. The OIN also in-formed UNHCR of the possibility ofthese measures.39

Conditions steadily worsened. Since31 March 2013, those whose time inBicske had expired have received no fi-nancial support of any kind (includingfood and drink) and not even medicaltreatment.40 The number of people inthe so-called 'Pre-Integration Camp' alsocontinued to rise in the summer monthsof 2013. As already mentioned in theintroduction, the camp is at present to-tally over-crowded; tents were evenerected recently and many refugees hadto sleep in the gymnasium.

REFUGEE PROTESTS IN BUDAPESTAGAINST THREATENED HOMELESSNESS

12


At about this time the HungarianParliament passed a new law on the de-tention of asylum-seekers. On 2 June2013 asylum-seekers and refugees the-refore once again demonstrated togetherwith the Migráns Szolidaritás group be-fore the Hungarian Ministry of the In-terior,41 since these stipulations, quiteapart from the drastic consequences forthe detainees themselves, would contri-bute to the further stigmatisation andincreasing hopelessness concerning thechances of integration of recognised re-fugees and others entitled to protectionin Hungary. A number of videos on thesedemonstrations can be seen in the In-ternet.42

A large part of the refugees threatenedin April by eviction from Bicske leftHungary together in June 2013 and ap-plied for asylum in Germany. 'We decidedto leave Hungary because all our attempts(…) to seek help to live a normal life asrefugees in Hungary have failed. (…)However, as a political protest, we deci-

R E F U G E E P R O T E S T S I N B U D A P E S T A G A I N S T T H R E A T E N E D H O M E L E S S N E S S

13

PROTEST AGAINST RE-INTRODUCTION OF DETENTION FOR ASYLUM-SEEKERS

PROTEST BEFORE HUNGARIAN PARLIAMENT


ded to leave Hungary together and togo to Germany and to apply for asylumthere. The fact that approximately 100of us left Hungary will not change any-thing in Bicske. The new people whowill be granted refugee status will facesimilar problems'.43 This prediction bythe refugees is already a reality: sincethe beginning of August 2013 the nextlarge group (45 people) is threatened byeviction from the camp in Bicske andonce again OIN has made no acceptableproposals.44 <


14

DEMONSTRATION BEFORE THE EU OFFICES IN BUDAPEST



15

27 Cf. Migráns Szolidaritás of 13.6.2013, described as the 'Declaration of the Refugees'.

Online: http://migszol.com/cikk/591.

2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qPlDTSzjL0#at=48.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbZcLGUwzxY.

http://index.hu/video/2012/11/23/nem_akarunk_itt_is_allatokkent_elni/.

29 Interview with a recognised Afghan refugee, Karlsruhe, on 04.07.2013.

30 Cf. Declaration of the Refugees.

31 Cf. ebd.

32 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_C4L2PEKt4.


34 Cf. ebd.

35 Cf. ebd.

36 Ebd.

37 Cf. Report Migráns Szolidaritás of 17.4.2013. Online: http://migszol.com/cikk/457.


39 Cf. Ebd.

40 Cf. Migráns Szolidaritás of 3.5.2013. Online: http://migszol.com/cikk/548.


42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVgxwh3tCsc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGzaHg9u3XA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50KhK5CqHY.

43 Declaration of the Refugees.

44 Cf. Migráns Szolidaritás vom 1.8.2013. Onine: http://migszol.com/cikk/671.

FOOTNOTES


FINANCIAL SUPPORT AFTER DEPARTURE FROM BICSKE

16

The financial support that recognised re-fugees and others entitled to protectionmay receive after leaving the 'Pre-Inte-gration Camp' in Bicske is listed below.It must be pointed out that these arepossible payments and, in the event ofapproval, the maximum sum possible isnot as a rule paid out. Another problemespecially affects recognised refugeesand others returned from other Euro-pean states to Hungary, i.e. who hadoften not been in Hungary for a consi-derable period of time: the difficultyhere is that the following list of servicescan only be applied for or within (a) cer-tain period(s) of time after departurefrom the so-called 'Pre-IntegrationCamp' or recognition of refugee status.To clarify the figures, the following sta-tistics are provided: according to theHungarian Central Statistics Office theaverage Hungarian net wage amounts to140,000 HUF monthly (approx. 471 € 45)while the poverty level stands at 62,000HUF (approx. 209 €).46 Depending onthe location of the housing, the rent (ex-cluding utilities) for accommodation inBudapest, according to the Central Eu-ropean University, would amount to atleast 40,000 HUF (approx.135 €).47

REGULAR MONTHLY SUPPORT:

This can be granted for a period of upto two years if the applicant can gua-rantee attendance of at least 70% atlanguage courses. If further conditionsare fulfilled – for example, cooperationwith the unemployment office – thissupport can be extended to three orfour years. The regular monthly sup-port can only be paid out if the personinvolved has left the so-called 'Pre-In-tegration camp' in Bicske and only for amaximum of four years after receivinga legal status. This means, for example,that a family that stayed in Bicske for ayear receives support for a maximumof only three years. An amount bet-ween 7,125 HUF (approx. 24 €) and28,500 HUF (approx. 96 €) monthlyper person can be granted. The condi-tion for support is that necessity isproven.48 An income limit exists the-reby for single persons of 42,750 HUF(approx. 144 €), while for families theaverage income of a family membermay not exceed 28,500 HUF (approx.96 €).49 Between 9,000 HUF (approx.30 €) and 15,000 HUF (approx. 50 €) amonth is normally approved.50

ONE-TIME SUPPORT:

These payments can be requested forrent security payments and for furnis-hing an apartment. They can be appliedfor during the stay at the Bicske 'Pre-Integration Camp' or within sixmonths after leaving it. The presenta-tion of a rental agreement is, however,obligatory. If approved, the supportamounts to between 56,000 HUF (ap-

prox. 188 €) and 171,000 HUF (ap-prox. 575 €). For families, payment ismade to only one member.51

HELP WITH THE RENT:

This support can be granted for a maxi-mum of two years to help with rent pay-ments. An official rental agreementmust be furnished for this, and mustapply to an apartment not larger, onaverage, than those occupied by theother inhabitants in the area. A maxi-mum of 28,500 HUF (approx. 96 €) canbe granted to a single person. For atleast one child a maximum of 57,000HUF (approx. 192 €) can be approvedand for at least three children a maxi-mum of 85,500 HUF (approx. 288 €).52

For this reason particularly, it is difficultto provide an official rent agreement, asa large number of apartments in Hun-gary are rented out without rental agree-ments so as to avoid the taxes due. Thisis even admitted to by the authorities:'The OIN and everybody else knows,that the owners of flats do not want togive a bill to the person who rents theflats, so this bill-problem is a real livingproblem'.53

What does this mean in practice? Toexplain this we would like at this pointto highlight the case of a single Afghanmother with three children (one of thema baby) who belongs to those refugeeswho refused to leave Bicske voluntarilyin the winter of 2012/2013. Accordingto the official notifications presented tothe authors of this report, the followingsupport was offered to her (regular


F I N A N C I A L S U P P O R T A F T E R D E P A R T U R E F R O M B I C S K E

monthly support): she herself, in theevent of departure from the so-called'Pre-Integration Camp' in Bicske, wouldhave received 7,125 HUF (approx. 24 €)per month, and her children 12,825 HUF(approx. 43 €) each. She would thenhave a total of 45,600 HUF (approx. 153€) of support per month. On top of thiswould come 68,000 HUF (approx. 229€) of child allowance, leading to a totalof 113,600 HUF (approx. 382 €) for herand her three children every month. Thesocial workers at the Bicske camp helpedher to find a flat that would have cost63,800 HUF (approx. 215 €) with anofficial rental agreement. Together withthe cost of utilities this flat would costbetween 85,000 HUF (approx. 286 € insummer) and 105,000 HUF (approx. 353€ in winter) so that she would have beenleft with a sum ranging from about10,000 HUF (approx. 34 €) up to 30,000HUF (approx. 101 €) monthly to financeall the other living costs for herself andher children. Theoretically she could havereceived a one-time support, after leavingthe camp, for a rent deposit and for helpwith the monthly rent. She would haveto submit an official rental agreementfor this and it was also unclear whethershe would be granted support and ifyes, how much it would amount to. Itmust be considered here that the cor-responding approval process usually lastsseveral months. This support would alsobe subject to expiry, i.e. if she wereunable to find a decently-paid job fairlyquickly she would sooner or later findherself on the street. In view of the in-calculable risks she therefore understan-dably chose not to accept the offer ofaccommodation and instead to remain(illegally) in Bicske, as there she at leasthas the whole children's allowance (lessthan 300 € monthly) at her disposal forthe living costs of the family.

At this point it must be pointed outthat the predicament of people withoutchildren is sometimes even worse, asthey have not the benefit of children'sallowances, which are comparatively hig-her than the other benefits. The problemcertainly exists in Germany, too, thatpeople with residence permits cannotfind accommodation and therefore have

to stay in refugee camps. But comparedwith Hungary there is a significant diffe-rence: whoever is unable to find and payfor accommodation is not simply evictedfrom the camp and thrown on the street,whether they have children or not.

The two or four-year deadline for thegranting of monthly support for recog-nised refugees and others entitled toprotection also leads to the situationwhere especially those who had alreadyreceived refugee status in Hungary sometime before can no longer be grantedany form of support. For the one-timesupport, or rent support, the provisionof an official rental agreement is onceagain essential, which is impossible forthose who shortly before were transferredfrom another European state. It mustalso be stressed that even if financialsupport is granted, it is not sufficient asa rule to pay for a flat. For many, rentingaccommodation in Hungary is de factobeyond their means. The alternative isonly to live in overcrowded and shabbyshelters for the homeless, which areoften short of beds; some manage tofind temporary refuge with friends andacquaintances. Due to their desperatesituation, many recognised refugees andothers entitled to protection attempt(once again) to find refuge abroad, ifonly to have a roof over their heads fora few months.

The head of the NGO Menedék, whichdeals with the integration of recognisedrefugees and others entitled to protectionin Hungary, points to the systemic defi-ciencies in the Hungarian reception sys-tem: 'The money support system whichshould help the refugees cannot be usedby most of refugees. This money supportis not enough for most of the refugees.The problem is not that there are only afew refugees who think that this moneyis not enough. The problem is, that thismoney is not enough for most of the re-fugees'.54 <

17



18

THIS LETTER FROM THE HUNGARIAN MIGRATION AUTHORITY STATES: IF YOU DO NOT LEAVE THE CAMP VOLUNTARILY AT ONCE, YOU CAN BE

EVICTED BY FORCE BY THE POLICE AND YOU WILL ALSO BE FINED.



19

45 When HUF are exchanged for € in this report it is made on the basis of the rate charged by the Interbank on 26.7.2013.

46 Cf. Budapest newspaper on 11.11.2012: Poor, dear Hungary. Online: http://www.budapester.hu/2012/11/11/armes-teures-ungarn/.

47 Cf. Central European University: Accommodation in Budapest (2013/2014). Online: http://www.ceu.hu/studentlife/onlineorientation/accom-

modation.

48 § 52, 301/2007. (XI.9.) Korm. rendelet.

49 § 39, 301/2007. (XI.9.) Korm. rendelet.

50 Cf. index.hu of 19.2.2013. Online: http://index.hu/belfold/2013/02/19/menekultek_kertek_az_eu_segitseget/.

51 § 47, 301/2007. (XI.9.) Korm. rendelet.

52 § 54, 301/2007. (XI.9.) Korm. rendelet.

53 Isván Ördögh, director of the refugee section within the OIN, during a discussion on Tilós Radio on 17 December 2012.

54 András Kováts, head of the NGO Menedék, during a discussion on Tilós Radio on 17 December 2012.

FOOTNOTES


ACCESS TO STATE MEDICAL CARE

20

In our report of 2012 we only touchedon the issue of medical provision for re-cognised refugees and others entitled toprotection. This gap will now be filled bythe following chapter. One of the crucialproblems facing refugees after leavingBicske is access to state medical care. Thefirst obstacle they are confronted with isthe issue of a 'TAJ kártya' (social insu-rance card), for which an address cardhas to be submitted. If the person con-cerned has a fixed abode, there are twokinds of address cards:

Permanent address: The holder hasa fixed abode, i.e. a street and housenumber are noted on the card. Withthis type of address card, a social insu-rance card can be applied for.

Temporary address: A street andhouse number are noted on the card.However, as it is only a temporaryplace of residence, no 'TAJ kártya' canbe applied for.If the person concernedhas no fixed abode, two kinds of nota-tion can be made on the address card:

'No address', with no further en-tries: no municipality or city district isnoted on the card. In this case no 'TAJkártya' can be issued.

'No address', and notation of a mu-nicipality or city district: in this case a'TAJ kártya' can be issued.

In practice it often turns out to bedifficult for refugees to register in a re-sidential area without a place of residence,as the local authorities tend not to acceptsuch registrations in 'their' area, so asto limit the number of people in need ofbenefits. In addition, acceptance of thecost of medical insurance is tied by theHungarian state to further conditions,such as the provision of a document sig-ned by a social worker.55

During a visit to a shelter for thehomeless in Budapest on 4.4.2013, asocial worker further pointed out thatthe occupants there could only registerwith 'Temporary address',56 which meantthat they could not apply for a 'TAJ kár-tya'. Also, those refugees who had refusedto leave the Bicske 'Pre-Integration Camp'in the spring of 2013 no longer receivedany form of medical attention.57 It cantherefore be maintained that, for refugeesin Hungary, access to the state medicalsystem, especially if they had to leavethe 'Pre-Integration Camp' in Bicske, isnot completely excluded but in practicebound up with a range of bureaucratichurdles which are sometimes insurmoun-table for those affected. This is confirmedby an investigation undertaken by theHungarian ombudsman, who in Hungaryhas the status of a parliamentary com-missioner for civil rights:

'During the inquiry, the refugees, theNGO staff members and the newspaperarticle on the basis of which I initiatedthis ex officio procedure all mentionedthat the local authorities of certain Buda-pest districts refuse to issue residence

cards for the district without a specificaddress with a street name and a housenumber. According to certain personsinvolved in providing support to homelesspeople, this tendency of not issuing re-sidence cards is the result of the rule inSection 6 of the Social Benefits Act (…).The benefits as listed in the Social BenefitsAct that are available to homeless peopleholding a residence card only showingthe village, town or district must be pro-vided by the particular town, village ordistrict that has issued the residencecard. Local authorities refusing to acceptsuch applications presumably take thisapproach because they want to limit thenumber of local citizens eligible for socialaid and they wish to prevent an increasein the administrative burden. (...) Healthinsurance cards are issued to peopleliving in Budapest and with district-levelplaces of residence by the local office ofthe Regional Labour Centre of CentralHungary (…). The Local Office alwaysrequests the applicants to show identi-fication documents, that is, the applicantmust give evidence of his/her personaldata, refugee status and place of resi-dence'.58

This on the other hand regularly leadsto the situation that refugees have noinsurance cover, especially if they havebeen returned to Hungary under theDublin II Regulation and (no longer)have Hungarian documentation. A furt-her problem is in particular the treatmentof victims of torture and those sufferingfrom post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD), as the UNHCR revealed:


A C C E S S T O S T A T E M E D I C A L C A R E

'External funds such as the EuropeanRefugee Fund (ERF) have been used tocover basic services, but the projects/ser-vices are often not sustainable, as therequisite complementary national re-sources are not allocated. The same holdstrue for the rehabilitation and treatmentof torture victims. Such services for asy-lum-seekers and refugees, who are victimsof torture or suffer from Post-TraumaticStress Disorder, are not provided for bylaw. The Cordelia Foundation, a localNGO and UNHCR implementing partner,does provide such services, althoughalso subject to available funding'.59

The NGO Cordelia specialises in thetreatment of torture victims and trau-matised refugees. According to an NGOmember, its work is mainly financed bythe European Refugee Fund and is carriedout only in the (detention) camps inBicske, Debrecen and Békéskaba. Notreatment of PTSD patients is providedby Cordelia in Budapest, that is, of refu-gees who had to leave the Bicske 'Pre-Integration Camp', as no funds are avai-lable.60 <

21

DEMONSTRATION BEFORE THE EU OFFICES IN BUDAPEST



22

The second flight of the family B. began more than three yearsago. The second flight, because two decades ago the parents fledfrom Afghanistan to Iran, where they grew up, married and hadthree children. Shugofa, the eldest, was born with a heart defectand had to undergo an operation at once. The family was finallydeported to Afghanistan. They were out of their depth there,felt permanently threatened and had no access to desperately-needed medical attention for their eldest child. They fled toEurope, arriving in Greece via Turkey. They crossed the Greekborder in the north by way of the Evros River, in which refugeeshave often drowned. Their group was to cross in a rubberdinghy. The parents each held a son in their arms, while a friendheld Shugofa. They were the first to climb into the dinghy butit capsized. Two friends managed to pull Shugofa and the mo-ther out of the water.

For over six months the family tried to travel onwards fromGreece, as it was clear that Shugofa would not receive the ne-cessary medical treatment there. They had a really hard time inAthens, they said. They borrowed money from friends and paidfor a trafficker who was to take them to Austria. But they werecaught just behind the Serbian-Hungarian border by the Hun-garian border police. Their fingerprints were taken and theyspent the night in a police cell. As they heard that Shugofawould not get adequate medical attention in Hungary, they fledonwards to Austria.

They applied for asylum in Austria but were returned to Hun-gary after four months. There they were detained in a closedcamp for families in Békéscsaba. Shugofa's condition got worseand worse and she finally collapsed. She was then X-rayed inhospital but after that nothing else happened. In the end thefamily was taken to Debrecen. There they were told Shugofacould not have an operation as long as they were in the asylumprocess.

Shugofa's illness got steadily worse, as the asylum process inHungary is usually a long drawn-out affair. The parents decidedonce again to move on to Austria. In the Austrian preliminaryreception camp in Traiskirchen they were turned away, becausethey had already been deported to Hungary once before. Butthey gave them an insurance voucher, as Shugofa was clearlyvery ill. The family spent the night on the street. The next daythey met someone in a mosque who at least allowed the motherand her children to stay overnight. He took them to Caritas,

which arranged for Shugofa to be medically examined. The aut-hors of this report have at their disposal a letter of 13.10.2011from the State Clinic in Vienna-Neustadt, in which it is statedliterally: 'As the girl is showing serious symptoms an operationshould be undertaken immediately'. Nothing happened, howe-ver, and after four months in Austria they were again deportedto Hungary.

They were finally sent to a camp in Balassagyarmat and 20 dayslater to Debrecen again. They spoke to the doctor there andshowed him the letter from the doctor in Austria who hadurged that an operation be conducted. Nevertheless they weretold the familiar story: 'Not during ongoing asylum procee-dings'. After six months in Debrecen they were granted a resi-dence permit for Hungary on humanitarian grounds. They weretransferred to the 'Pre-Integration Camp' in Bicske, where theparents at once turned to the doctors and camp director topoint out Shugofa's heart condition, hoping that she would fi-nally receive her operation. It took a further eight months be-fore Shugofa was examined. She was X-rayed once again. Ms R.emphasises that she could see that her daughter felt worse aftereach X-ray and she had heard that too many X-rays would domore harm than good. The doctor said in the end that unfortu-nately he could not operate on Shugofa, as she was too smallfor the appliances he had at his disposal.

The parents joined up with other families in a similar situationand tried outside the camp to approach the political decision-makers in Hungary, the UNHCR and even the European Com-mission. This did not help either, and after a certain period ofgrace in Bicske, from 31.3.2013 they came under increasedpressure. They insist that they received no form of medical at-tention at all. They then discussed the situation with othersand decided they would all leave together: 'Almost all of us hadbeen deported to Hungary from other European countries andwe were all afraid. But the fear of staying was even greater'.

Shugofa was finally operated on in a clinic in Heidelberg on30.7.2013. She looks very small in her hospital bed, smaller andthinner than her younger brothers. She says she doesn't reallybelieve they can stay here. She often wakes up at night and isafraid of noises; she then asks her mother: 'Are they taking usaway now'?



23

55 This information comes from an interview with a representative of the homeless people's initiative 'The City is for All' on 30.8.2012, as well

as from the e-mail correspondence that followed.

56 Cf. Migráns Szolidaritás of 1.4.2013. Online: http:/migszol.com/cikk/457.


58 Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights in case number AJB 1692/2010, August 2011, p. 17. Online:

http://migszol.com/files/2013/03/OmBudsman_Bicske_Homeless-refugees-2011.pdf.

59 UNHCR: Hungary as a country of asylum. Observations on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees in Hungary, p. 14. Online:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f9167db2.html.

60 Cf. a telephone interview with a member of the NGO Cordelia on 29.11.2012.

FOOTNOTES


CRIMINALISATION OF HOMELESSNESS IN HUNGARY

24

The number of people living under thepoverty level in Hungary today is esti-mated at about 3.7 million, which ac-counts for some 40% of the population.According to the latest assessments thenumber of those living in inferior or ex-tremely overcrowded housing amountsto some 1.5 million, or about 15% of thetotal population. Since the start of thefinancial crisis in 2008 tens of thou-sands of people are threatened witheviction, as they can no longer servicetheir loans. It is nearly impossible to es-timate how many people are on thestreet or in homeless shelters exactly,especially as no official statistics exist.According to experts in the social ser-vices the number of those on the streetor in shelters must be around at least30,000.61 In a report by UN officials inFebruary 2012, the estimate of thehomeless stands between 30,000 and35,000 people, among them large num-bers of women, children, old people andhandicapped persons. About 8,000 ofthem live in the capital Budapest, al -though there are places for only 5,500 inhomeless shelters.62

The German newspaper 'FrankfurterRundschau' reported in March 2013:'The homeless are visible everywhere inBudapest. The shops and offices in thecentre barricade their entrances at nightwith folding grilles so that no one cancamp there overnight in a sleeping bagor in newspapers, surrounded by theirfew belongings. In the mornings peopleslouch through the city with cardboardand newspapers under their arms. Noone knows where they have slept. On a

particularly cold night some years ago3,000 homeless people were counted inBudapest who were spending the nightin the open. In each of the last few yearssome 70 to 80 people have died fromcold in the city; not all were, however,homeless.63

The situation of the homeless becamemore critical in October 2010, when theHungarian Parliament passed a law al-lowing the municipalities to impose sanc-tions on 'living on the street'. At the be-ginning of 2011 the Ministry of the In-terior examined legal ways of interningthe homeless. In April 2011 new res-trictive legislation came into force.64

From then on, the local councils couldimpose bans on spending the nights instations or on the street. Sifting throughrubbish could also be punished. This ledas a rule to fines, but this could be turnedinto imprisonment for repeated offencesor non-payment of fines. In May 2011the Budapest city administration issueda regulation ordering the payment offines for 'permanent life on the street'.For repeated infringements, fines of upto 150,000 HUF (approx. 505 €) couldbe imposed, or imprisonment for non-payment of the fines. The first homelessshelter with a special room for short-term arrest was opened in the autumnof 2011. In November 2011 the Hunga-rian Parliament passed a law forbidding'Living in public places'.65

In December 2011 the ParliamentaryCommissioner for Civil Rights approachedthe Hungarian Constitutional Court anddemanded the repeal of the new laws

and decrees against the homeless: 'Ac-cording to the views of the ParliamentaryCommissioner for Civil Rights, the newregulation (the Act on the Shaping andProtection of Built Environment, 2010)enables the use of border police actionson public places against homeless people– thus criminalizing the homeless people– this cannot match the Hungarian con-stitutional and the European humanrights norms'.66 He had previously de-manded from the Hungarian Ministryof the Interior and Budapest City Councilthat the corresponding passages in thenew law and corresponding decree shouldbe annulled, without success.

A year later, in December 2012, theHungarian Constitutional Court ruledagainst the criminalisation of the home-less. With this judgement, Hungary'shighest court acknowledged the objecti-ons raised by a number of NGOs againstthe ruling that forbade the 'use of publicplaces as living space' and threatenedthe imposition of fines or imprisonment.In justification of the decision the courtsaid: 'The mere fact that someone livesin public places does not automaticallyaffect other people's rights, does not ne-cessarily cause damage and does not perse endanger the normal use of publicspace'.67

On 11 March 2013 the HungarianParliament passed the 'Fourth Revisionof the Hungarian Constitution', whichamong other things enabled the crimi-nalisation and punishment of the home-less. The drastic treatment of the home-less is now covered legally by a general


C R I M I N A L I S A T I O N O F H O M E L E S S N E S S I N H U N G A R Y

clause in the Hungarian constitution(Article 8, Section 3: 'A law or localdecree can forbid the use of certainpublic spaces for the purpose of sleepingovernight, in order to protect publicorder, public security, public health orcultural values'68). To outmanoeuvre theConstitutional Court the Orbán govern-ment simply rewrote the constitutionat short notice.

The Federal Working Group 'Help forthe Homeless' (a registered charity)issued a statement to the press on theoccasion of the constitutional amend-ments, in which it maintained: 'On Mon-day the Hungarian government, as ex-pected, repealed the elementary consti-tutional rights of homeless citizens by

way of its right-wing populist majority.From now on, homeless people whospend the night outside twice within 6months can be fined 500 €. Whoever isunable to pay this sum lands in prison.(…) This is an unheard-of setback in thesocial and political post-war history ofEurope, in which step by step all the so-called 'vagrancy clauses' were repealed –in Germany through the penal reformof 1974 (§ 361 StGB)'.69

At this point it must be noted thatlife for homeless refugees is even morecomplicated; especially those who havebeen returned from another Europeancountry have great difficulty in gainingaccess to the scarce beds in homelessshelters in Hungary. The Hungarian

Commissioner for Human Rights statedin a report on this issue:

'Persons applying for support as home-less people must prove or at least sub-stantiate their eligibility. It was a com-mon phenomenon among refugees re-turning from abroad that all their docu-ments, previously obtained with the helpof the social workers at the receptioncentre, were lost or expired. Accordingto the accounts of the refugees intervie-wed during the inquiry, access to nightshelters is only allowed if, as part of theusual administration, the refugees showtheir personal identification documentsand also their medical certificates veri-fying they do not have tuberculosis orparasites (lice, mites etc.). The situationof those refugees who do not speak Hun-garian was significantly worsened by thelanguage barrier. Initially, they had ahard time understanding why they weresent away from shelters. However, thestaff members of homeless support or-ganisations interviewed during the in-quiry complained that, as they did notspeak the necessary foreign languages,they could not even explain to the for-eigners who did not know the city wellwhere exactly the different pulmonaryscreening stations (located in parts ofBudapest distant from each other) areand how they can get to the public healthinstitution issuing certificates of para-site-free status. Another issue was thatforeigners without a health insurancecard had to pay for pulmonary screening.Many of the refugees mentioned thatthey did not have the documents requiredfor the usual administration at the centre,they were denied access and they had tospend the night outdoors. The refugeeswere not given a formal written decisionon rejecting their application for accom-modation at the night centre and so itwas impossible to collect evidence onthe affected institutions and the exactdates of rejection'.70 <

25

DESPITE RESTRICTED CONDITIONS, NOT NEARLY ENOUGH BEDS:HOMELESS SHELTER IN BUDAPEST


26

DEMONSTRATION BY THE HOMELESS BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT: 'WE FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE!'

RULE OF LAW!


27

61 Cf. Mariann Dósa and Éva Tessza Udvarhelyi: The increasing criminalisation of homelessness in Hungary, in: HRW Newsletter Issue 4,

October 2012, p.7 ff. Online: http://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4k9StDq8GYYRTgzb1VBcGdVWms/edit?pli=1.

62 Cf. UN News Centre of 15.2.2012: UN experts speak out against Hungarian law criminalising homelessness. Online:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41246#.UVtzDFdhdYE.

63 German newspaper 'Frankfurter Rundschau' of 23.3.2013: Obdachlos in Ungarn – Weg von der Strasse. Online: http://www.fr-online.de/po-

litik/obdachlos-in-ungarn-weg-von-der-strasse,1472596,22241408.html.

64 Cf. German newspaper 'taz' of 25.11.2011: Obdachlose in Budapest – Orbán soll nur kommen. Online: http://www.taz.de/Obdachlose-in-

Budapest/!82554/.

65 In our last report of February 2012 we reported in detail about the then state of affairs.

66 Press release by the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights.

67 Cited according to the German newspaper 'taz' of 18.11.2012: Straffreiheit für Obdachlose in Ungarn – Ein wenig Menschlichkeit'. Online:

http://www.taz.de/!105746.

68 Cited according to press release of the Austrian Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Wohnungslosenhilfe e.V. (Federal Working Group for the

Homeless) of 10.4.3.2013. Online: http://www.bawo.at/de/content/aktuelles/chronik/details/datum/2013/04/09/ungarisches-parlament-be-

schliesst-gesetz-zur-kriminalisierung-obdachloser-menschen.html.

69 Ebd.

70 Report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights in case number AJB1692/2010 /Related case:AJB420/2010/, August 2011,

p.18. Online: migszol.com/files/2013/03/OmBudsman_Bicske_Homeless-refugees-2011.pdf.

FOOTNOTES


COMPULSORY LABOUR BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL

28

'Since I received my papers I have lookedfor a job every day, nothing for eightmonths. The only offer they sometimesmake is a job for 47,000 HUF a month(approx. 158 €). That's exactly 4,000 fo-rints (approx. 13 €) too much for themonthly support. You can't even rent aflat for that, never mind feed yourself!If you turn down this work you don't getany more money. But how can I surviveon it?' (A.R. from Afghanistan).

We are talking here about the so-called 'Közmunkas', a kind of compulsorywork service for those receiving socialsupport, which has to be done if you donot want to be cut off from all socialsupport, and which was also offered tothe refugees in the 'Pre-Integration Camp'in Bicske. Employers can also hire workerscheaply. For the duration of the pro-gramme – mostly only in the summer,as according to the law, heated roomsand the corresponding clothing must beprovided – the (compulsory) labour ispaid at the rate of 47,000 HUF (approx.158 €) per month, in the remainingmonths 22,000 HUF (approx. 74 €).71

'Anyone who refuses the Közmunka,the 'communal work', or breaks it off wit-hout excuse, loses all claims for 3 yearsto state support (about 90 € a month).However, the person concerned is de-pendent very often on the goodwill of aforeman or village notary as to what isto be regarded as 'excused' and what not.Anyone who follows orders for up to 40hours a week can expect an increase insocial support of about 70 € a month'72 ,

reported 'Pester Lloyd', the HungarianGerman-language online newspaper, inJune 2012. By comparison: the legal mi-nimum wage in Hungary stands at 98,000HUF (approx. 330 €).73 For a full-timejob in the state employment programmesthe wage amounts to about half the legalminimum wage.

In 2012 the Parliamentary Ombuds-man for Minorities in Hungary, Dr ErnöKallai, criticised in detail the so-calledemployment programmes – above allbecause of their discriminatory effects.'Pester Lloyd' comments about his report:'He goes into great detail on the cir-cumstances and implementation of thepublic employment programmes, whichwill really roll into action this year allover the country and for which, in Gy-öngyöspata this summer, five model pro-jects took place, probably to test theburden of suffering on those involved.He demonstrates that it is not, as officiallyintended, an instrument to motivate fitand able social support recipients to getinto regular work and no longer be aburden on the state. In fact, it is useddeliberately for racially motivated ha-rassment, which can result in the com-plete withdrawal of the means of exis-tence, with the definite objective of dri-ving the Hungarian Roma out of theareas with an ethnic Hungarian majority.While the Roma have to do senselessbut strenuous physical work, 'Magyar'social support recipients are deployedas their supervisors and in this waygiven special treatment. Kallai warns ofthe consequences if the law is in future

applied with all its possibilities, whichincludes compulsory 'dispatch' to distantwork sites, including accommodation inovernight shelters. In this way, equaltreatment in accordance with humanrights and the right to a family life areinfringed upon. In addition, for the 're-muneration' of this 'compulsory labour'the minimum wage was abolished; theworkers – after a more generous arran-gement in in the 'model phase' – arepaid only an increase of about 50 to amaximum of 80 € on top of social sup-port, plus travel costs'.74

Apart from the state programmes des-cribed, it is in fact scarcely possible forrefugees in Hungary to find work, formuch depends on contacts and networks.However, in Hungary, as there are onlyfairly large communities of migrants fromUkraine, Serbia and China,75 it is practicallyimpossible, especially for Afghan andSomali refugees, to find a job. In our se-cond year of research in Hungary, too,we seldom met a single recognised refugeein Hungary with a job – not even casualwork, for example, on the buildings or inrestaurants. Those who have no relativesin other European countries to supportthem financially cannot therefore remainin Hungary and are forced to travel oninto other European states – for theycannot seek aid from a social network,which in Hungary usually consists of fa-mily members that can offer help in timesof unemployment. <


C O M P U L S O R Y L A B O U R B E L O W T H E P O V E R T Y L E V E L

29

71 Cf. http://republikschilda.blogspot.de/2012/12/wir-stehen-hilflos-hier-herum.html, Original in Hungarian in Magyar Narancs 2012/47 (22

November 2012). Online: http://magyarnarancs.hu/kismagyarorszag/tehetetlenul-allunk-82592.

72 Pester Lloyd of 22.06.2012: Brigade to 'Schöneren Zukunft' (Brighter future). Online: http://pesterlloyd.net/html/1225kozmunka.html.

73 Cf. Chamber of Commerce Austria, 15.01.2013.

74 Pester Lloyd of 01.02.2012: Der Kallai Bericht belegt amtlichen Rassismus in Ungarn (The Kallai Report proves official Racism in Hungary).

Online: http://www.pesterlloyd.net/2012_05/05kallaibericht/05kallaibericht.html.

75 Cf. English-language statistics of OIN.

FOOTNOTES


RACISM, PROTESTS BY LOCAL RESIDENTS AND HATE CRIME IN HUNGARY

30

In our Hungary Report of March 2012we covered racist assaults that homelessrefugees in particular are exposed to. Inthe course of last year there was also aseries of demonstrations against refugeeshelters, as well as racially motivated at-tacks outside Budapest. Some of theseincidents are described in the followingpassages.

BALASSAGYARMAT

In the small town of Balassagyarmat,which lies directly on the Hungarian-Slovakian border and has just over 15,000inhabitants, there is a refugee campwhere the internees may leave the campduring the day but have to stay thereovernight. The residents of the camp re-ceive no form of financial support at alland are given the same food as the pri-soners in the local jail. We therefore de-signate Balassagyarmat as a 'half-opencamp'. The occupants in this camp aremainly people whose applications forasylum were rejected, as well as thosewho had been returned to Hungary underthe Dublin II Regulation.76 In July 2012,after a girl from the town of Balassagy-armat accused a resident of the camp ofraping her, a xenophobic atmospheredeveloped in the town. This did notchange even when the young girl publiclyadmitted that she had invented the storyas an excuse for staying away from homeovernight. As a result of the ugly mood,two demonstrations were organised toprotest about the camp. One of thesedemonstrations (on 2 August 2012) wassupported by the Hungarian neo-Nazi

party Jobbik77.The Jobbik parliamentaryrepresentative Zagyva György Gyula ad-dressed the detainees directly throughan interpreter and announced that thiswas just the beginning, as this problemcould not be solved without civil dis-obedience, although it was already knownthat the rape charges were fake. Evenbefore the demonstration 1,700 signa-tures had been collected with the aim ofclosing the camp down.78 A Facebookcampaign was also organised to demandthe closure of the camp and already had3,724 supporters by 28 August 2012.79

In this overheated atmosphere a numberof assaults were carried out against campoccupants. One of the residents of thecamp reported in an Internet video ofthe Hungarian online newspaper HVGthat 15 skinheads had attacked him andhis girlfriend. In the same video anothercamp occupant is interviewed who re-ported being attacked by ten to twelvepersons. He complained that the localpolice did nothing to help and simplysent him away.80 In reaction to these as-saults the Helsinki Committee organiseda workshop for the Balassagyarmat campinhabitants on 13.2. 2013 to explainhow to deal with such 'hate crimes'.There is a video of this workshop inwhich several people speak of furtherattacks.81 Another website which hasmeanwhile become active reported onthis, demanded the closure of the campand accused the Helsinki Committee ofshowing no interest in the Hungarianvictims in the town of Balassagyarmat.82

The website also urged the populationto inform the police if any camp residents

were seen on the streets after 10 p.m.83

In addition a report was made of a peti-tion with a total of 2,567 signatorieswho demanded the closure of the camp.84

There are also links on the website totwo videos in which Zagyva GyörgyGyula gives an interview in the Parliamentbuilding85 and comments on the campin Balassagyarmat during a parliamentarysession.86 In this session he also saidamong other things that the occupantsof the camp were not refugees, but cri-minals, a large number of whom hadcommitted crimes in other countries.He finally put the question to the StateSecretary of the Interior Ministry whetherthere were any plans to shift the campelsewhere. This was denied by the Se-cretary, but he pointed out that becauseof complaints by the mayor to the Mi-nistry, stricter regulations would nowbe enforced. In the other video ZagyaGyörgy Gyula demanded in an interviewthat the camp should be shifted to a lo-cation where no one lived within a 30km radius and also accused the HelsinkiCommittee of not protecting the people'srights, but only those of outlaws and'anti-socials'; this had already been thecase in Gyöngyöspata.87


R A C I S M , P R O T E S T S B Y L O C A L R E S I D E N T S A N D H A T E C R I M E I N H U N G A R Y

DEBRECEN

In the evening of 18.5.2013 Jobbikorganised a torchlight procession in De-brecen to demonstrate against the refugeecamp there, which is at the moment ho-pelessly overcrowded due to drasticallyincreased asylum-seeker figures. Accor-ding to the Hungarian online newspaperindex.hu, some 1,100 people are now li-ving in the camp, some of them sleepingon mattresses in the canteens and sto-re-rooms.88 About 200 people took partin the demonstration, which marcheddirectly past the camp. In an Internetvideo of the procession there are ghostlyscenes – in the darkness the torchescreate an extremely threatening atmo-sphere. In addition the marchers are notonly waving the national flag, but someof them are wearing the uniform of the'Hungarian Guard.'89 Instead of imme-diately condemning the Jobbik demandto close the camp, the mayor of Debrecen,who belongs to the Fidesz Party, an-nounced: 'If the situation stays like this,the reception camp must be removedfrom the town'90. It is therefore no sur-prise that Jobbik once again arranged a

torchlight procession on 19.6.2013, inwhich this time about 150 people tookpart. The head of the Jobbik parliamen-tary faction, Tibor Agoston, and the Job-bik 'expert' Robert Herpergel read alouda list of the 'atrocities' allegedly committedby the inhabitants of the camp.91

VÁMOSSZABADI

In the village of Vámosszabadi, nearGyör, there were also huge protests, sup-ported by Jobbik, against the establish-ment of an open refugee camp for 216people. Jobbik argued that the situationcould escalate, as it had in Debrecen,and make the life of the inhabitantspure hell.92 The deputy mayor, NorbertKukorelli, maintained on the municipa-lity's website that the negative effectsof the camp would be felt even in Györ.93

A number of companies announced, mo-reover, that they would reconsider theirinvestments in Vámosszabadi. A localnewspaper declared that as a result ofthe opening of the camp 140 jobs wouldbe lost.94 In consequence of the debateabout the establishment of the camp ,Pintér Sándor, the Hungarian Minister

of the Interior, stated that there werealready enough refugees in Hungary. 95

Following the protests, demonstrationstook place and a petition signed by 4000people was presented.96 In an article inan online news portal a doctor wasquoted as saying that the refugees couldpossibly spread infectious diseases.97

Even if the incidents in Gyöngyöspatain Spring 2011 were the exception ratherthan the rule, they are still a strikingexample of what political danger canensue from the linking of local majorityinterests, the intervention of the extremeright – above all by Jobbik – and the in-action of the Hungarian government.In Gyöngyöspata, 200 Roma were finallyevacuated from the village and in July2011 a Jobbik mayor won the election.98

As the latest protests against local refugeecamps show, this ominous coalition isnow not only anti-Roma, but againstrefugees in general.

31

JOBBIK POSTER: 'WANT TO STOP THE BLOODSUCKERS? THEN YOU'RE A JOBBIK VOTER!


What this will lead to, only the futurecan show, but it is to be feared that itwill mean a further worsening in theconditions for refugees and asylum-see-kers in Hungary, due to the spreadingxenophobic attitudes within the Hun-garian population. <


32

JOBBIK: 'EU: WE CAN SAY 'NO' TOO!'

JOBBIK DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE RECEPTION

CAMP IN DEBRECEN ON 18.5.2013



33

76 Among them, four Syrians who were transferred to Hungary from Germany in February 2013 and were the subject of the German Bundes-tag paper 72/9297.

77 Jobbik received over 16% of the votes in the last Parliamentary elections in Hungary in 2010.

78 Cf. hvg.org of 10.8.2013. Online: http://hvg.hu/itthon/20120810_balassagyarmat_menekultek.

79 Cf. screenshot of the Facebook page of 28.8.2012.

80 Cf. video of the Hungarian online newspaper hvg.org of 21.9.2012. Online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im-xMZ0HM9E.

81 The video can be found on the website of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee: http://helsinki.hu/en/forum-on-hate-crime-in-balassagyar-mat.

82 Cf. article on the website www.szivenszurtvaros.hu. Online: http://www.szivenszurtvaros.hu/2013/02/ebedreinvitalta-helsinki-bizottsag.html.

83 Cf. article on the website www.szivenszurtvaros.hu. Online: http://www.szivenszurtvaros.hu/2013/03/magyarrendszervalto-elit-szokas-sze-rint.html.

84 Cf. article on the website www.szivenszurtvaros.hu. Online: http://www.szivenszurtvaros.hu/2013/02/tobb-mint-2500-kovetelik-az.html.

85 Cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s09Za8WJ_js.

86 Cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zdCiiPKiwik.

87 In Gyöngyöspata pogrom-like assaults took place in Spring 2011 against the local Roma after right-wing extremists and paramilitarygroups had repeatedly organised marches. Cf. Spiegel Online of 29.4.2011: Right-wing extremists in Hungary: 'Come out, you gypsies, todayyou're going to die!' Online: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/rechtsextremisten-in-ungarn-kommt-raus-zigeuner-heute-werdet-ihr-sterben-a-759640.html.

88 Cf. index.hu of 20.6.2013. Online: http://index.hu/belfold/2013/06/20/fokozott_vedekezes_a_statisztaturistak_ellen.

89 Cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OE1iVLk0A4.

90 Cf. Press release by Migráns Szolidaritás on 18.5.2013. Online: http://migszol.com/cikk/514.

91 Cf. dehir.hu of 19.6.2013. Online: http://www.dehir.hu/debrecen/menekulttabor/-faklyas-felvonulassal-tiltakozott-ajobbik/2013/06/19/.

92 Cf. index.hu of 16.6.2013. Online: http://index.hu/belfold/2013/06/16/a_jobbik_tiltakozik_a_vamosszabadi_menekulttabor_ellen/.

93 Cf. hgv.org of 17.06.2013. Online: http://hvg.hu/itthon/20130617_Vamosszabadi_nem_akar_menekulttabort.

94 Cf. kisalfold.hu on 18.6.2013. Online: http://www.kisalfold.hu/gyori_hirek/menekulttabor_-_ujabb_fejlesztes_maradna_el_vamosszabadin/2338124/.

95 Cf. index.hu of 20.6.2013. Online: http://index.hu/belfold/2013/06/20/hiaba_tiltakoztak_lesz_menekulttabor_vamosszabadiban/.

96 Cf. kisalfold.hu of 29.6.2013. Online:http://www.kisalfold.hu/gyori_hirek/elolancos_tiltakozas_a_vamosszabadi_menekulttabor_ellen__video_foto/2339790/.

97 Cf. gyor.hir24.hu of 25.6.2013. Online: http://gyor.hir24.hu/gyor/2013/06/25/fertozo-betegsegeket-hozhatnak-amenekultek-vamosszaba-dira/.

98 Cf. Norwegian Helsinki Committee: Democracy and human rights at stake in Hungary - the Viktor Orbán government’s drive for centrali-sation of power, p. 51. Online: http://nhc.no/filestore/Publikasjoner/Rapporter/2013/Rapport_1_13_web.pdf.

FOOTNOTES


T H E O D Y S S E Y O F S A M I R E .

34

Samir E. sits in the State Reception Cen-tre in Karlsruhe and says: 'If you want tohear my whole story you'll have to writea complete book.' We agreed to keepingit to the part that happened in Europe,but noticed fairly quickly that this couldfill a few chapters too.

In 2008 Samir came to Europe. Onthe Greek island of Lesvos he was atfirst detained (like thousands of othersin that year) in the notorious islandprison of Pagani, which, after massiveprotests, was described by the GreekMinister of the Interior as 'Dante's In-ferno' and closed down. That was onlythe start of his odyssey through Europe.

In October 2008 he managed to fleeonwards from Greece. He succeeded inreaching Norway, in the far north ofEurope. After ten months he was de-ported to Athens from Oslo; Greece wasresponsible for his entering Europe so,according to the Dublin II Regulations,the asylum procedure had to be conductedthere. In Athens he spent a month inpolice detention at the airport and wasthen thrown out. He was not able toapply for asylum and was now living onthe street.

In 2009 he fled once again from Gree-ce, this time to Germany. In Frankfurthe applied for asylum and was imme-diately placed in deportation detention,at first in Preungesheim for some weeksand later in the detention centre inOffenbach. After about two or threemonths' imprisonment he was again de-ported from Frankfurt to Athens. Onceagain he spent several weeks in prisonat Athens Airport and was then thrownon the street again.

On his third attempt in Spring 2010he attempted to flee via the land route,crossed the border on foot to Macedoniaand travelled on to Hungary throughSerbia. In Hungary he was arrested. Hemade an application for asylum but wasstill imprisoned, first in Nyírbátor, thenin Zalaergerszeg. After six months' de-tention he was again returned to Greece.He once again spent weeks in detentionat Athens Airport and soon found himselfback on the street.

His fourth flight got him as far asthe Netherlands. It was the same storyagain, except for one detail. It was now2011 and in the meantime there hadbeen a judgement by the European Courtof Human Rights decreeing that returnsto Greece were a breach of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. Nearlyall the member states in the EU no longerdeport to Greece. However, Samir E. stillspent another six months in prison inthe Netherlands, for now the authoritiesregarded Hungary as being responsiblefor the conduct of his asylum process.

In October 2011 Samir E. arrived inHungary once again. However, this timehe was not deported to Greece but gran-ted refugee status by the Hungarians.Nevertheless, in November 2012 he wasagain threatened with homelessness. Hesoon realised that Hungary might notbe different in Greece, but he still hadno security.

Five years on the run, detention infive different European countries, inter-rupted only by months on the street inAthens. Five years of lost life, he callsthese years. Now he at last had papersand could begin to build a life for himself– but he lacked the basis for it: no work,no accommodation, no perspective of in-tegration. In June 2013 Samir E. boardeda train with seventy others who foundthemselves in the same desperate situa-tion, and travelled to Germany: 'I'll try itonce more, and if they deport me againI'll go back to Afghanistan. I left there tolive, but now I think it's better to bemurdered sometime, because that happensquickly. In Hungary you die a little everyday, slowly and painfully. ' <

THE ODYSSEY OF SAMIR E.


S U M M A R Y A N D E V A L U A T I O N

35

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

To answer the question as to what con-sequences can be expected after a Dub-lin II return to Hungary and whetheractual and/or legal objections can bemade, one must first distinguish bet-ween two basically different points ofdeparture: does the person concernedhold a valid resident permit due to his orher 'protection status' or is this not thecase? If the latter applies, then that per-son can be detained:

As a result of the change in legisla-tion that came into force on 1 July thisyear, the imprisonment of asylum-see-kers was re-introduced. The groundsfor imprisonment are so open to inter-pretation that they can in fact be ap-plied to practically any asylum-seeker.It cannot yet be estimated to what ex-tent Dublin II returnees without a resi-dence permit are affected. However, asdemonstrated in this report, a numberof reasons for detention (for example,'obstruction of the asylum process') ap-pear to be applicable in great measureto Dublin II returnees.

The judicial examination is con-ducted only at 60-day intervals, whe-reby the rule of law of this process isopen to serious doubt, as it is executedby the same courts that in the years2011 and 2012, in court decisions,ended the detention of only three outof some 5000 migrants.

The UNHCR also assumes that there-introduced detention of asylum-see-kers could represent a breach of theEuropean Convention on Human

Rights. In the past, Hungary has beencondemned in a number of cases by theEuropean Court of Human Rights withregard to the imprisonment of asylum-seekers.

Under-age asylum-seekers can alsobe detained (although only togetherwith their families), which must also beviewed as an infringement of the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child.

No statements can as yet be madeon the conditions in the detentioncamps. Only in a few months' time willit be possible to judge whether the si-tuation so severely criticised in thepast, by the UNHCR, among others,has improved.

People with recognised refugee status orother protection status in Hungary arein particular threatened, after a DublinII return, by homelessness and inade-quate access to medical treatment. Itmust also be kept in mind that personswho are still in the asylum procedure arealso confronted in the medium termwith this problems.

Six months (for single persons) ortwelve months (for families) after reco-gnition of their preotection status thepeople concerned must leave the so-called 'Pre-Integration Camp' in Bicske.As outlined in detail in this report, thefinancial support that follows does notas a rule suffice to pay for accommoda-tion and daily living costs. Payment isalso tied to conditions that often can-not be fulfilled by those affected.

In the homeless shelters only limi-ted space is available and access to it isespecially difficult for refugees. Onecannot assume that (Dublin II) retur-nees will be offered a place on arrival inHungary, quite apart from the conditi-ons in these facilities. Families withchildren are hit particularly hard, asmany of the shelters are meant foradults only.

Spending the night in the opencan, according to recently introducedlegislation, be punished by imprison-ment or a fine.

Without a fixed place of residencemany refugees have difficulty in obtai-ning satisfactory medical treatment.Due to insufficient funding the NGOCordelia can offer psychological andpsychiatric treatment only to the occu-pants of a few camps, but not to thoseliving elsewhere. (Further) treatmentof many refugees with post-traumaticstress disorder (PTSD) is therefore im-possible.

The EU states are still far from main-taining comparable standards in refugeeprocedures and reception facilities. Re-fugee protection means more than apiece of paper: those affected must beoffered realistic prospects of integrationinto the respective society so that theycan enjoy a life of dignity. If this is notpossible they will be forced into travellingonwards.


A variety of national and internationalcourts have ruled that a life in absolutepoverty conflicts with the principle ofrefugee protection. The German FederalAdministrative Court, for example, stated:'The decisive question is whether thepolitical refugee in the third state, ac-cording to the prevailing living conditionsthere, can by general observation gain alivelihood, even if modest. That is, inthis third state he or she is not helplesslyexposed to death through hunger or ill-ness or condemned to eking out a mise-rable existence at the poverty level'.99

The ground-breaking M.S.S. decision inJanuary 2011 by the European Court ofHuman Rights, after an appeal by anAfghan refugee, follows the same lines,stating that 'a situation of extreme ma-terial poverty' can represent a breach ofArticle 3 of the Convention.100 The Eu-ropean Court of Justice concurred withthis legal position and forbids returnsto a state (referring to Article 4 of theEuropean Charter of Fundamental Rights,

which corresponds to Article 3 ECHR) if'systemic flaws' in the asylum processor the reception conditions can be assu-med there.101 As clearly described in thisreport, at present one must regard 'sys-temic flaws' in the reception conditionsin Hungary as given, particularly withrespect to those persons whose term inthe so-called 'Pre-Integration Camp' inBicske has expired. Due to the drasticincrease in asylum applications one mustfear that the 'systemic flaws' will growaccordingly. If the majority of the appli-cants already present in other Europeanstates are actually returned to Hungary(as foreseen in the Dublin II Regulation)the existing reception facilities for refu-gees and others with protection statuswill be totally inadequate as accommo-dation fit for human beings. Their capa-city is already at bursting point – whichhas led to asylum-seekers being housedin tents.

As long as it cannot be guaranteed forDublin II returnees that asylum applicantswill not be detained under degrading andconstitutionally questionable conditions,these returns are not justifiable. If evenrecognised refugees or others entitled toprotection are forced to live in inhumanconditions on the street in Hungary, re-ceiving not only inadequate support fromthe government but also threatened withcriminalisation due to their homelessness,then the other European states must ac-cept responsibility for this group. Thisreport, together with statements by theHungarian Helsinki Committee and theUNHCR, clearly reveals 'systemic flaws'with regard to the reception conditionsin Hungary. For this reason, deportationsto Hungary must as a matter of principlebe stopped. <

36

S U M M A R Y A N D E V A L U A T I O N

105 German Federal Administrative Court decision of 30.05.1989.

106 European Court of Human Rights decision of 21.1.2011, 30696/09, paragraph 252.

107 European Court of Justice decision of 21.12.2011, C-411/10 and C-493/10, paragraph 86.

FOOTNOTES


A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

37

As in our initial report, the report onhand is based above all on discussionswith people of very different back-grounds. We would like to thank allthose who gave us their support. Wehave listened to many harrowing ac-counts – not all of them could be inclu-ded in this report, but they werenevertheless very important, for theymoved us deeply and motivated us evenfurther. We realise how difficult it was,especially for those who spoke of theirown painful experiences. We wish ex-pressly at this point to offer our thanksfor the trust they placed in us. An im-portant difference from our first reportcan be clearly seen in the illustrations in-cluded: our special thanks go to thegroup of protesting refugees in Hun-gary, many of whom now live in Baden-Württemberg in Germany. Theythemselves raised their voices and high-lighted the unendurable conditions inHungary as well as Germany. They havetaken this step not just for themselvesand the future of their children, but alsoin solidarity with those who still have toset out on this daunting path.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INFORMATION STAND IN BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG


DECISIONS DUBLIN-CASES:

12.09.2013: VG Freiburg

28.08.2013: VG Freiburg

24.07.2013: VG Frankfurt/Oder

03.07.2013: VG München

13.06.2013: VG Hamburg

11.04.2013: VG Magdeburg

21.03.2013: VG Augsburg

18.03.2013: VG Hannover

26.02.2013: VG Darmstadt

08.01.2013: VG Augsburg

07.01.2013: VG Ansbach


16.11.2012: VG Aachen


08.11.2012: VG Anbach

02.11.2012: VG Meinigen


14.08.2012: VG Stuttgart

29.06.2012: VG Sigmaringen

30.05.2012: VG Magdeburg

26.04.2012: VG Meinigen


08.02.2012: VG Chemnitz

RULINGS DUBLIN-CASES:


27.05.2013: VG Hamburg


06.08.2012: VG Magedeburg

30.05.2012: VG Trier

DECISIONS RECOGNISED REFUGEES:

15.07.2013: VG Hannover

07.12.2012: VG Kassel

A N N E X

38

The following is a list of decisions and rulings known to us which are directed against returns to Hungary. The corresponding de-cisions and rulings are available under: http:// bordermonitoring.eu/2012/03/zur-situation-derflüchtlinge-in-ungarn/The list is constantly updated.


MARC SPEER

is a graduate sociologist and was wor-king for the Bavarian Refugee Council.He has been involved for many years inthe issue of refugees in Eastern Europeand is active, among other things, inthe Border Monitoring Project Ukraine.In addition he is on the board of the Fe-deral Working Group 'Asylum in theChurch' and in the association 'border-monitoring.eu'. He is at present studyingfor a Ph.D. at Göttingen University.

MARION BAYER

has been working on an honorarybasis for many years in church-sponsoredrefugee work in the Main-Kinzig county,South Germany. Since 2009 she has vi-sited Greece regularly and documentedabove all the living conditions of the re-fugees there who were returned underthe Dublin II Regulation. Since the endof 2010 she has been to Hungary a num-ber of times, as through her work shecame into increasing contact with refu-gees from Afghanistan, Eritrea and So-malia who had been (or were to be) re-turned to Hungary under the Dublin IIRegulation.

L A Y O U T

MATTHIAS WEINZIERL

is a freelance graphic designer andmember of the Bavarian Refugee Council.www.matthiasweinzierl.de

A U T H O R S

39

The charitable association 'border-monitoring.eu' was established in Mu-nich in 2011. The focus of the associati-on's work is on the debate about thepolitics, practices and events surroun-ding the European border regime andabout migration movements. To thisend the association combines scientificresearch, political commitment and cri-tical public relations activities with con-crete support for refugees and migrants.In this way the association contributestowards a change in the realities at theborders and in their consequences forEuropean society.

THE INDIVIDUAL CASE COUNTSIn these times of a growing 'Fortress

Europe' mentality, together with a ri-gorous deportation policy, the rights ofrefugees are in danger. PRO ASYL isan independent human rights organi-sation that has been fighting for therights of persecuted people in Germanyand Europe for over 25 years. Morethan 15,000 people are already membersof the PRO ASYL supporters' association.Besides public relations and lobbying,together with research and support forinitiative groups, it aids refugees in theasylum process and as part of its workoffers concrete help in individual cases.At the same time PRO ASYL plays anactive role in current political debateson German and European refugee po-licies.


u Detention centre | w Half-open camp | Open Camp

> WWW.BORDERMONITORING.EU WWW.PROASYL.DE

RUMANIA

UKRAINESLOVAKIAÖSTERREICH

SERBIACROATIA

SLOVENIA


Documents

Refugees hungary report update 2014