CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s8EDC4501 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8F34B6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s77B4793D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .s469162F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8764A35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } SECOND SECTION CASE OF H.Q. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Applications nos. 46084/21, 40185/22 and 53952/22)   JUDGMENT   Art 4 P4 • Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens • Applicants’ automatic removal, either individually (the first applicant) or together with other persons (the second and third applicants), to the external side of the Hungarian border fence with Serbia • Authorities’ refusal to entertain first applicant’s arguments and lack of individual removal decision for remaining applicants not a consequence of their own conduct • “Embassy procedure” not providing genuine and effective access to means of legal entry Art 3 (procedural) • Expulsion • Domestic authorities’ failure to examine applicants’ access to adequate asylum procedure in Serbia Art 13 (+ Art 4 P4) • Lack of an effective remedy against removal Art 46 • General measures • Need for immediate and appropriate measures preventing further collective expulsions and ensuring genuine and effective access to international protection procedure   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 24 June 2025   FINAL   24/09/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of H.Q. and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   46084/21, 40185/22 and 53952/22) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Afghan nationals, Mr H.Q. and Mr Z.A., and a Syrian national, Mr   A.S.A. (“the applicants”), on 17 September 2021, 12 August 2022 and 17   November 2022 respectively; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”); the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section in application no. 46084/21; Having deliberated in private on 3 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the removal of the three applicants from Hungary to Serbia and their alleged lack of effective access to the international protection procedure, which could be initiated only after a positive outcome of a preliminary procedure at the Hungarian embassy in Belgrade (the so-called “embassy procedure”). THE FACTS 2 .     The first applicant (H.Q.) was born in 1996 and lives in Austria. The second applicant (Z.A.) was born in 2006 and lives in Serbia. The third applicant (A.S.A.) was born in 2000 and lives in Germany. The first and second applicants were represented by Mr G. Győző, a lawyer of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. The third applicant was represented by Ms   B. Pohárnok, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. FACTS RELATED TO THE FIRST APPLICANT (H.Q.) Events leading to the first applicant’s removal 5 .     The first applicant (an Afghan national) entered Hungary in 2018 on the basis of a residence permit for study purposes. On 14 September 2021, following the expiry of his residence permit (in 2019 apparently), the first applicant lodged an asylum application with the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing ( Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság – hereinafter “the NDGAP”) on the grounds that he feared persecution by the Taliban owing to his father’s position in the previous Afghan government. 6 .     On 17 September 2021 the NDGAP rejected his application without examining its merits. The decision was based on section 32/F(1)(b) of the Asylum Act (see paragraphs 40 and 41 below) and sections 268 and 271 of the 2020 Transitional Act (see paragraphs 47 and 48 below). It considered that the first applicant was pursuing an “impossible objective”. The decision was served on the first applicant on the same day, in person. 7 .     Subsequently on that day, the NDGAP informed the Budapest District XI Police Department about the first applicant’s illegal stay and instructed that he be removed in accordance with section 5(1b) of the State Border Act (see paragraph 42 below). On the same day the first applicant was arrested, handcuffed and taken to the police station. His personal data was recorded and he was searched. He handed over his passport, a copy of his visa application and his asylum application. It would appear from the case file that the police did not forward his asylum application to the NDGAP. At 1.40 p.m. he was escorted to the Airport Police, with a view to his removal being enforced. 8 .     Also on 17 September 2021, the first applicant was driven to the Serbian-Hungarian border (Tompa Transit Zone) and at 5.30 p.m. a police officer of the Kelebia Border Guard Department of the Bács-Kiskun County Police (hereinafter “the Kelebia Border Guard”) ordered him to walk through a gate in the border fence, in the direction of Serbia, in accordance with section 5(1b) of the State Border Act, which he did. The first applicant stayed in the Belgrade Refugee Centre until 14 May 2022. He subsequently entered Austria and applied for asylum there. Police complaint procedure concerning the first applicant’s removal 9 .     The first applicant complained to the Airport Police and the Budapest District XI Police Department about their actions relating to his removal, under section 92 of the Police Act (see paragraph 44 below). They rejected those complaints and the first applicant used further remedies, which were ultimately unsuccessful. 10.     As regards the complaint against the Airport Police, the appeal authority considered that the impugned measures could not be challenged by means of a complaint under section 92 of the Police Act (see paragraph   44 below). The first applicant subsequently lodged an action with the Budapest High Court, which initiated proceedings before the Constitutional Court, requesting that it strike down section 5(1b) of the State Border Act (see paragraph   42 below) on the basis that it was unconstitutional or did not comply with international law, and find that it did not apply to situations such as that of the first applicant. On 18 April 2023 the Constitutional Court refused the Budapest High Court’s request, finding that the first applicant’s case did not require it to examine the constitutionality of section 5(1b) of the State Border Act. Afterwards, on 6 July 2023 the Budapest High Court dismissed the first applicant’s action, taking the view that removal under section   5(1b) of the State Border Act could not be challenged by means of the complaint procedure provided for in the Police Act. It pointed out that the measure could be challenged directly before an administrative court. 11 .     As regards the complaint against the Budapest District XI Police Department, following the dismissal of the first applicant’s appeal by the appeal authority, the Budapest High Court dismissed the first applicant’s action, finding that the police department had not removed him under section   5(1b) of the State Border Act, but had taken him to the competent authority under section 33(1)(f) of the Police Act (see paragraph 45 below) and had therefore acted properly. Following the first applicant making a petition for judicial review, the Kúria upheld that judgment on 23 May 2024. Administrative action concerning the first applicant’s removal 12.     On 18 October 2021 the first applicant’s legal representative lodged an administrative action against the Airport Police, challenging the applicant’s removal. He subsequently extended that action to include the NDGAP and the Kelebia Border Guard (see paragraph 8 above) as defendants. In his action, he argued, among other things, that section 5(1b) of the State Border Act (see paragraph 42 below) was contrary to both EU law and ECHR case-law (namely Shahzad v. Hungary , no. 12625/17, 8   July 2021). 13.     On 26 May 2022 the Budapest High Court quashed the NDGAP’s “administrative act” ordering the first applicant’s removal (see paragraph   7 above) and ordered the Kelebia Border Guard to allow him to return to Hungary. The Budapest High Court held that the applicant’s stay had been lawful by virtue of his pending asylum proceedings, therefore the conditions for removal, that is, unlawful stay, had not been met. Furthermore, relying on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) adopted in case no. C-808/18 (see paragraph 64 below), it also held that the “administrative act” had been unlawful, since it had been carried out in the absence of a formal decision. 14 .     Following the NDGAP and the Kelebia Border Guard making petitions for judicial review, on 21 June 2023 the Kúria quashed the Budapest High Court’s judgment of 26 May 2022 (see paragraph 13 above) and remitted the case for re-examination. It confirmed, by referring to ruling no.   Kfv.III.37.126/2023/8. of 3 May 2023 of the Kúria (see paragraph   53 below), that removal carried out in accordance with section 5(1b) of the State Border Act was in itself an individual decision and thus an “administrative act” referred to in Article 4 §§ 1 and 3 (a) of the Code of Administrative Justice, and could therefore be the subject of an administrative dispute (see paragraph   46 below). As to the legality of the individual decision, the Kúria held that on the basis of the available information, it could not be established that it had been adopted by the NDGAP, since the authority, in an email sent to the Airport Police, had merely established that the first applicant’s stay was unlawful. As a matter of principle, the Kúria noted that a decision by the police to remove a person staying illegally in the territory of Hungary fell within their discretionary power. However, it was the court’s role to resolve disputes, such as the question of which body made the decision to remove the individual in question. The Kúria also emphasised that in the case of an unlawful administrative decision, the situation of the person concerned should be remedied. 15 .     During the re-examination of his case, the applicant extended his action to include the Budapest District XI Police Department as a respondent. On 7 September 2023 the Budapest High Court held a hearing and on 21   November 2023 it quashed the “administrative act” pertaining to the removal, finding that it was indeed the NDGAP which had ordered the removal and had therefore acted outside its competence. However, it noted that the applicant had not indicated that there had been any adverse consequences, and found that his re-entry to Hungary was therefore no longer necessary. 16 .     Following the NDGAP making a petition for judicial review, on 23   May 2024, in ruling no. 11.K.702.553/2023/22, the Kúria upheld the Budapest High Court’s judgment of 21 November 2023 (see paragraph   15 above). The Kúria rejected the NDGAP’s arguments and held that the Budapest High Court had correctly established the facts and had identified and interpreted the relevant law. It agreed with the finding in the impugned judgment that the NDGAP had overstepped the limits of its competence by deciding to remove the first applicant. The Kúria held that the NDGAP, as the authority for aliens policing, had had no power to order the first applicant’s removal, therefore its decision on his removal had been null and void within the meaning of the Code of Administrative Justice. Administrative action and subsequent proceedings concerning the first applicant’s asylum application 17 .     On 17 September 2021 the first applicant, via his legal representative, filed an administrative action against the NDGAP’s decision dismissing his asylum application and requested that the effect of the NDGAP’s decision (see paragraph 6 above), that is, his removal, be suspended. On the same day his legal representative informed the Airport Police of the pending legal action. On 24 September 2021 the Airport Police informed the first applicant’s legal representative that the police had acted lawfully in implementing the impugned measure. 18 .     On 11 October 2021 the Budapest High Court granted the first applicant’s request to suspend his removal (see paragraph 17 above) and held that there had been no legal basis for his removal pending the outcome of that request. On 13 October 2021 the Budapest High Court ruled that the return of the first applicant to Hungary should be facilitated, in line with the finding that his removal should have been suspended. 19 .     On 12 November 2021 the Budapest High Court quashed the NDGAP’s decision rejecting the applicant’s asylum application and remitted the case for re-examination. It held that the NDGAP’s decision had breached the requirement of equal treatment, as another asylum-seeker, a Syrian national in a similar situation, had in fact been granted asylum. The court ordered the NDGAP to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the general rules of the Asylum Act, and ordered that the applicant’s return be facilitated. The first applicant initiated enforcement proceedings regarding the decision to facilitate his return. During those proceedings, on 29   November 2022 the NDGAP submitted that it had informed the border authorities about the judgment of 12 November 2021, in the event that the first applicant arrived at the border in order to attend the hearing (see paragraph 20 below). Later on, after arriving in Austria, the first applicant asked for those proceedings to be terminated. 20 .     On 22 April 2022 the NDGAP summoned the applicant via his legal representative for a hearing in person. In turn, the applicant’s legal representative informed the NDGAP of the applicant’s address in Serbia (see paragraph 8 above). Ultimately, only the first applicant’s representative attended the hearing, which took place on 2 May 2022. The representative explained that he had not been informed of any arrangements made by the authorities to allow the first applicant’s entry into Hungary. 21 .     On 15 June 2022 the NDGAP terminated the asylum proceedings, relying on Article 19(2) of the Dublin III Regulation (see paragraph   63 below) and section 32/I(c) of the Asylum Act (see paragraph 41 below), holding that the first applicant had been outside the EU for more than three months and had subsequently requested asylum in Austria, and consequently Hungary’s responsibility for the asylum procedure had ceased to exist. FACTS RELATED TO THE SECOND APPLICANT (Z.A.) 22 .     The second applicant is an Afghan national. He submitted that, being 16   years old at the time, he arrived in Hungary on 16 February 2022 unaccompanied and clandestinely via the Serbian-Hungarian border. Subsequently, he was involved in a traffic accident while being transported by a smuggler in a van. He suffered severe injuries and was taken to a hospital in Szeged, where, according to the second applicant, his spleen and one of his kidneys were removed. 23 .     According to a medical report issued on 17 February 2022, the applicant was transferred to a hospital in Szeged by ambulance on 16   February 2022. The next day he was admitted to the intensive care unit of the traumatology department. Among his personal data, the report stated that his name was “injured man”, his date of birth was “01/01/1990” and he was a Hungarian citizen. It also recorded that he had been admitted as the victim of a car accident, that he had said that he was 16 years old, and that he had communicated in English. 24 .     According to the applicant, a few days after undergoing surgery, he expressed to a doctor in the hospital that he wished to seek asylum in Hungary. Subsequently, two police officers arrived at the hospital, registered his personal data and informed him that he would be transferred to the Károlyi István Children’s Centre in Fót once he had recovered. 25 .     On 14 April 2022 the final medical report on the second applicant’s injuries was issued. He was prescribed medication and an X-ray examination four weeks later. He was also advised to avoid putting weight on his limbs. The personal data in the report were the same as those in the previous medical report (see paragraph 23 above). On what would appear to be the same day police officers took the second applicant out of the hospital barefoot and put him in a police vehicle without his belongings. He was given a pair of crutches so that he could move around. He was transported by van to the Serbian-Hungarian border fence. According to the second applicant, on several occasions during the journey to the border he repeated to the officers “Fót” (the name of the town where the children’s centre was based – see paragraph 24 above) and said that he wanted to request asylum. In his submission, the police van stopped at the Tompa Transit Zone and he was ordered, together with about a dozen Arabic-speaking men, to leave Hungary through the transit zone exit in the direction of Serbia, which he did. 26.     In Serbia, the second applicant was picked up by a passing car and taken to the reception centre in Subotica. There, he was advised to go to the asylum centre in Obrenovac, which he did after spending a night in the forest. Subsequently, he had a medical checkup in Belgrade and received painkillers. 27 .     On 4 November 2022 the second applicant lodged a “declaration of intent” with the Hungarian embassy in Belgrade in order to be allowed entry into Hungary for the purposes of claiming asylum there (see paragraph   48 below). He submitted that he feared returning to Afghanistan, that he had been held in captivity by the Taliban for a few days before escaping the country, and that his father had been killed by the Taliban. On 16 December 2022 the NDGAP held a remote hearing with the second applicant. 28 .     On 10 January 2023, without giving a formal decision or providing any reasons, the NDGAP decided not to recommend that the second applicant be issued with a travel document. The following day the Hungarian embassy in Belgrade notified the second applicant and his legal representative of that decision via email. On 22 May 2023, following the second applicant lodging an administrative action, the Budapest High Court quashed the NDGAP’s “administrative act” and remitted the case to that authority. The court had at its disposal an internal document prepared by the NDGAP, which stated that the second applicant had failed to apply for asylum in the countries in which he had previously stayed, namely Serbia and Bulgaria. That document had not been sent to the second applicant. The court ordered the NDGAP to adopt a formal decision taking into account the aim of the legislation, namely the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 infections, and to refrain from making any assessment of the admissibility or merits of the asylum application. 29.     In the remitted proceedings, on 29 December 2023, in a formal decision, the NDGAP refused to issue the second applicant with a travel document. It referred to section 91 of the 2023 Extension Act (see paragraph   50 below) and found that the second applicant had stayed in a safe country for a long period of time before lodging a “declaration of intent”. The second applicant filed an administrative action against that decision. 30 .     On 30 April 2024 the Budapest High Court quashed the NDGAP’s decision. It found that the NDGAP had examined the admissibility of the asylum application by applying the “safe third country” clause, instead of following the instructions in its previous judgment (of 22 May 2023, see paragraph 28 above). Furthermore, the Budapest High Court referred to judgment no. C-823/21 of the CJEU and, in view of its findings (see paragraphs 65 to 69 below), refused to remit the case to the NDGAP on the basis that the CJEU had found that the “embassy procedure” was contrary to EU law. FACTS RELATED TO THE THIRD APPLICANT (A.S.A.) 31 .     The third applicant (a Syrian national) claimed that he had fled Aleppo owing to the security situation, the threat of persecution and ill-treatment related to forced recruitment by the Kurdish military, to which one of his relatives had already fallen victim. 32 .     On 9 July 2022 the third applicant arrived in Hungary clandestinely via the Serbian-Hungarian border, together with another twelve Syrian nationals. After a smuggler had picked him up in a minibus, he was involved in a traffic accident. He was taken to a hospital in Budapest. He regained consciousness after being in a coma for six days. Police officers at the hospital contacted the Organisation of Muslims in Hungary for assistance. The organisation sent an Arabic-Hungarian man who assisted the third applicant with interpretation and directed him to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC). On 17 July the third applicant contacted the HHC via email and asked for legal assistance in order to seek asylum in Hungary. 33.     According to the third applicant, during his stay in the hospital he expressed his wish to seek asylum on at least three occasions to the police and to medical staff, including with the above-mentioned interpreter’s assistance. On 18 July 2022 police officers informed him that he was to be returned to Serbia. In response, he again expressed his wish to stay in Hungary and seek asylum. 34 .     On 19 July 2022 at 11.45 a.m. two police officers arrived at the hospital. The third applicant repeated his request for asylum to them, explained that as a result of his email correspondence with the HHC, he was going to have a meeting with a lawyer from that organisation later that afternoon, and complained of his poor health. In the meantime, a medical report was given to him. He had been prescribed medication and further rehabilitation treatment, and was advised to return for a check-up after a week. According to the third applicant, at 12.45 p.m. on the same day two officers handcuffed him and restrained him by putting a leash around his wrists while he was still wearing a neck brace. They took him to the Budapest District XIII police station. His personal data was registered and his personal belongings were taken away. According to the third applicant, he showed his email correspondence with the HHC to a police officer there and expressed his wish to seek asylum. 35 .     On the same day the Budapest District XIII Police Department issued a report indicating that the third applicant was to be escorted to the Airport Police with a view to being removed in accordance with section   5(1b) of the State Border Act. Handcuffed and restrained by a leash, he was transported to the Airport Police. According to him, he complained of pain and repeated his wish not to be returned to Serbia. According to a reply sent by the Airport Police in response to an enquiry made by the third applicant’s legal representative on 12 August 2022, the third applicant was considered to be a person who was staying in Hungary illegally and expressing his intention to lodge an asylum application. At 10 p.m. he was transferred to a so-called “collection point” at the Szigetszentmiklós police station of the Pest County Police Department, where he was kept handcuffed with other foreigners. Around midnight he was taken to the border fence and given back his belongings. He was photographed. 36 .     In the early hours of 20 July 2022, together with around forty other persons, the third applicant was ordered to walk through a gate in the border fence, in the direction of Serbia, in accordance with section 5(1b) of the State Border Act, which he did. 37.     According to the third applicant, he had difficulty walking and after two hours was approached by a passing driver who called a taxi to take him to a reception centre in Sombor, Serbia. However, he was not admitted to the camp and had to stay in the forest. On 25 July 2022 doctors from Médecins Sans Frontières issued a medical report stating that he was still wearing the neck brace and had reported being in severe pain. The medical report also recorded that he had limited movement in his right arm. Two days later the third applicant was taken to Germany by a smuggler and lodged an asylum application there. 38 .     The third applicant instituted complaint proceedings in relation to the actions of the Budapest District XIII Police Department and the Airport Police, but to no avail, as the police and subsequently the courts considered that his complaint concerning the application of section 5(1b) of the State Border Act did not fall within the scope of the Police Act. 39.     The third applicant also challenged his removal before the Budapest High Court. It appears that those proceedings are pending and no further information is available to the Court, apart from an argument raised by the third applicant that the remedy was in any event ineffective. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE The Asylum Act 40 .     As regards the concept of a safe third country, the relevant provisions of the Asylum Act, namely sections 51 and 51/A, were summarised in S.S.   and Others v. Hungary (nos. 56417/19 and 44245/20, §   20, 12 October 2023). As regards sur place protection, the Asylum Act provides that a claim for international protection (for either refugee status or to be a beneficiary of subsidiary protection) can also be based on events that occurred after the foreigner in question left his or her country of origin, or on activities carried out by the foreigner after he or she left his or her country of origin (sections   6(2) and 12(2) of the Asylum Act). 41 .     The following relevant provisions allow the asylum authority to reject an asylum application without considering its merits: Section 32/F “(1) The asylum authority [shall] reject an [asylum] request by [issuing] a ruling without an examination on the merits if ... (b) the request pertains to an objective that is manifestly impossible ...” Section 32/I “The asylum authority [shall] terminate the proceedings if ... (c) the circumstances that gave rise to the continuation of the proceedings no longer exist ...” The State Border Act 42 .     The relevant part of section 5(1) of Act no. LXXXIX of 2007 on State Border (hereinafter “the State Border Act”), as amended in 2016 (when subsection 1a was added) and 2017 (when subsection 1b was added), reads as follows: “(1) In accordance with this [Act], it shall be possible to use, in Hungarian territory, a strip [of land] within 60 metres of the external borderline, as defined in Article 2(2) of the Schengen Borders Code, or of the signs demarcating the border, in order to build, establish or operate facilities for maintaining order at the border – including those referred to in section 15/A – and to carry out tasks relating to defence and national security, disaster management, border surveillance, asylum and immigration. (1a) The police may, in Hungarian territory, apprehend foreign nationals [who are] staying in Hungarian territory illegally, on a strip [of land] within 8 kilometres of the external borderline, as defined in Article 2(2) of the Schengen Borders Code, or of the signs demarcating the border, and escort them through the gate of the nearest facility referred to in [subsection] 1, except where they are suspected of having committed an offence.” (1b)     In a crisis situation caused by mass immigration, the police may, in Hungarian territory, apprehend foreign nationals [who are] staying in Hungarian territory illegally and escort them beyond the gate of the nearest facility referred to in subsection 1, except where they are suspected of having committed an offence.” 43 .     A “state of crisis due to mass migration” was declared in September 2015, and subsequently this has been continuously extended. The Police Act 44 .     Section 92 of Hungary’s Police Act (Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police, hereinafter “the Police Act”) outlines the procedures for individuals who believe that their fundamental rights have been infringed as a result of police actions or omissions. It provides two avenues for lodging complaints: a direct complaint to the police involved in the action or omission, and a request for an independent review conducted either by the National Police Headquarters, the directorate-general of the body performing internal crime prevention and crime investigation tasks, the body preventing terrorism, or that of the body responsible for aliens policing after the complaint was examined by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. 45 .     Section 33(1)(f) of the Police Act provides that the police may apprehend a person who is staying in the territory of the country illegally and hand him or her over to the competent authority with a view to further measures being taken. The Code of Administrative Justice 46 .     The relevant provisions of Act no. I of 2017 on the Code of Administrative Justice (hereinafter “the Code of Administrative Justice”) provide as follows: Article 4 [Administrative legal disputes] “(1) The lawfulness of an act by an administrative body governed by administrative law [which is] aimed at or result[s] in a change in the legal situation of the person concerned, or the lawfulness of a failure to carry out such an act (henceforth an “administrative act”), shall be the subject of an administrative legal dispute. (2) A disputed act may be the subject of an administrative legal dispute if a party directly affected by the administrative act has exhausted the statutory administrative remedies against the disputed act, or [if] the lawsuit has been preceded by other administrative proceedings prescribed in a statutory provision. (3) Administrative acts shall include (a) individual decisions; ...” Article 52 [Ordering suspensive effect] “... (2) No acts may be enforced from [the time] when the body carrying out the enforcement becomes aware of the application [to suspend an act] until [the time] when the application is decided, [or] until the expiry of the time-limit for adjudicating [the application] at the latest, unless the administrative body has declared its act to be immediately enforceable. Unless the court decides otherwise, acts [relating to] enforcement [which are] carried out before the body carrying out enforcement becomes aware of the application shall remain effective.” The 2020 Transitional Act 47 .     Act no. LVIII of 2020 on the Transitional Rules relating to the Termination of the State of Danger and on Epidemiological Preparedness (hereinafter “the 2020 Transitional Act”) was adopted on 17 June 2020 and was in force from 18 June 2020 onwards, being extended on an annual basis. 48 .     The following provisions of the 2020 Transitional Act concerned the new system by which potential asylum-seekers were required to make a declaration of intent at a Hungarian embassy outside the EU in order to seek travel documents for Hungary for the purpose of making an asylum application there (so-called “embassy procedure”), and are relevant to the present case: Section 268 “(1)             The foreigner [in question] notifies the asylum authority of his or her wish to enter Hungary in order to lodge an asylum application by making a declaration of intent in person in respect of the lodging of an asylum application. (2)             The declaration of intent in respect of the lodging of an asylum application, in the form of a document addressed to the asylum authority, may be submitted to a diplomatic representation of Hungary (“an embassy”) within the meaning of section   3(1)(a) of the Law on Diplomatic Representations and the Foreign Service, as defined in the Government Decree [see paragraph 51 below], [and] the content [of that document shall be] specified and published by the asylum authority. (3)             The asylum authority shall examine the declaration of intent and may conduct remote interviews with the foreigner in its embassies. (4)             The asylum authority, within 60 days, shall inform the embassy of the issue of a single-entry travel document for Hungary (“the travel document”) for the purpose of making an asylum application. (5)             If, on the basis of the declaration of intent, the asylum authority does not propose to issue a travel document, it shall inform the foreigner through the embassy.” Section 269 “On the basis of the information provided by the asylum authority in accordance with section 268(4), the embassy of Hungary shall issue a travel document valid for 30 days if the foreigner does not have permission to enter the territory of Hungary.” Section 270 “(1)             Except for section 271, an asylum application may be lodged after the procedures have been conducted in accordance with sections 268 and 269. (2)             A foreigner who holds a travel document shall inform the border guard of his or her intention to make an asylum application immediately after entering the country. (3)             The border guard shall present the foreigner to the asylum authority within a maximum period of 24 hours. (4)             A foreigner who has made an asylum application may exercise the rights conferred on him or her by the Asylum Act from the date on which his or her asylum application is made to the asylum authority. (5)             The asylum authority may [issue] a ruling assigning the asylum applicant accommodation in a closed reception centre. If four weeks have elapsed from the date of lodging the application and the conditions for detention have not been met, the asylum authority shall determine the place of accommodation in accordance with the general rules of the asylum procedure.” Section 271 “(1)             The following persons [are not required] to make the declaration of intent referred to in section 268 [prior to] lodging an asylum application: (a)             a beneficiary of subsidiary protection staying in Hungary; (b)             a family member of a person recognised as a refugee or a beneficiary of subsidiary protection within the meaning of the Asylum Act, who was in Hungary at the time when the asylum application was lodged; and (c)             a person subject to a coercive measure, measure or punishment restricting individual liberty, unless he or she has crossed the borders of Hungary irregularly. (2)             If a foreigner who crosses the Hungarian border irregularly informs the police of his or her intention to lodge an asylum application, he or she shall be directed by the police to the Hungarian embassy in the neighbouring country of the place where the border was crossed. (3)             In relation to [the persons listed in] subsection 1, the asylum authority conducts the asylum procedure in accordance with the general rules.” Section 275 “(1)             The Government has the power to draw up by decree a list of Hungarian embassies in which a declaration of intent may be lodged in respect of the lodging of an asylum application. (2)             The Minister for Immigration and Asylum is hereby authorised to establish by decree, with the agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the procedural arrangements necessary for the implementation of this Chapter.” 49 .     Section 274 of the 2020 Transitional Act provided that the “embassy procedure” should apply to the examination of asylum applications made after 10 June 2020. The 2020 Transitional Act furthermore provided (under section 273) that sections 71/A-72 and sections 80/H-80/K of the Asylum Act, on border and airport procedures and the transit zone regime respectively (see, for the relevant provisions, S.S. and Others , cited above, §   21), were not applicable. In this connection, transit zones stopped operating in May 2020, following the judgment of the CJEU adopted in FMS and Others v. Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság (C ‑ 924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU) (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no.   36037/17, § 28, 2 March 2021). Furthermore, asylum applications could not be submitted at borders or at the airport, or from inside the country (except in the case of the exceptions specified in section 271 of the 2020 Transitional Act, cited above). 50 .     The last extension of the application of the “embassy procedure” – to last until 31 December 2024 – entered into force on 30   December 2023 by means of Act no. XCI of 2023 on Extending the Effect of the Application of the Embassy Procedure (hereinafter “the 2023 Extension Act”). The explanation concerning section 91 of the 2023 Extension Act, which accompanied the draft of that Act, read as follows: “On the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14   May 2020 in cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU, it became necessary to terminate the transit zone [regime], and at the same time the so-called “declaration of intent procedure” was introduced in connection with the asylum procedure. It remains essential that only those [people] who are truly in need of [asylum] and who cannot be guaranteed safe living conditions elsewhere apply for and receive asylum in the territory of the [European] Union. In order to ensure that the rules [governing asylum proceedings] do not encourage masses to set off towards the Union, a solution is needed whereby asylum applications are filed and assessed before entry into the territory of the Union, as in the previous Hungarian system of transit zones. The amendment is also justified by the prevention and limitation of mass and purposeful abuse, also encouraged by criminal groups of people smugglers. Under the current Fundamental Law of Hungary, it is justified and expedient to maintain the asylum application system currently in force, known as the declaration of intent system, because the framework it creates, in addition to the country’s former epidemiological defence, acts to prevent and curb the bad faith behaviour of irregular migrants wishing to transit [who are] massively abusing our advanced asylum system, and [such behaviour on the part] of the networks of people smugglers that serve them.” 51 .     At the material time, Government Decree no. 292/2020 of 17 June 2020 provided that a declaration of intent could be made to the Hungarian embassies in Belgrade (Serbia) and Kyiv (Ukraine). As of 1 January 2025, these embassies have been designated by Decree no. 23/2024 (XII. 30.) of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 52 .     As of 1 January 2025, the provisions of the 2020 Transitional Act concerning the “embassy procedure” are no longer in force. Instead, the procedure is now governed by Government Decree no. 361/2024 (XI. 28.) on the Applicability of the Transitional Rules for Asylum Procedure, adopted on 28   November 2024 (“the 2024 Decree”). This Decree, in all aspects relevant to this case, contains pr