CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 21 septembre 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF29177A6 { height:1pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB5FD9220 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.05pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2023)260 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Ilias and Ahmed group against Hungary   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 September 2023 at the 1475 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Case Judgment of Final on 47287/15 ILIAS AND AHMED 21/11/2019 Grand Chamber 12625/17 SHAHZAD 08/07/2021 08/10/2021 18531/17 H.K. 22/09/2022 22/09/2022 64050/16 W.A. AND OTHERS 15/12/2022 15/12/2022   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Recalling that this group of cases concerns a violation of the procedural obligation under Article 3 to assess the risks of ill-treatment before removing the asylum-seeking applicants to Serbia by relying on a general presumption of “safe third country” ( Ilias and Ahmed ; W.A. and others ); it further concerns violations of the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention following the application of the “apprehension and escort” measure introduced by the State Borders Act, authorising the police to remove the asylum-seeking applicants staying illegally in Hungarian territory to the external side of the border fence (on the border with Serbia) without a decision, as well as the lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 in respect of the applicants’ removal ( Shahzad and H.K. );   Taking note of the authorities’ information that the legislative presumption of “safe third country” in respect of Serbia has not been applied by the asylum authority or the domestic courts since 26 May 2020;   Considering nevertheless that sufficient guarantees against the reoccurrence of a violation similar to the one identified by the European Court in Ilias and Ahmed and W.A. and Others are necessary;   Reiterating its grave concern that despite the authorities’ repeated indications that the reform of the asylum system is underway, no information on concrete measures has been communicated in this respect;   Reiterating further its grave concern that, despite the concerns expressed in its previous decisions and notwithstanding the adoption of the Shahzad and H.K. judgments by the European Court, collective expulsions reportedly not only continue but that their numbers are increasing at a concerning rate;   Emphasising the legal obligation of every State, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the final judgments of the European Court in any case to which they are a party, fully, effectively and promptly;   INVITED the authorities to submit an undertaking that, in the absence of a thorough and up-to-date reassessment of the asylum situation in Serbia, they will refrain from again applying the legislative presumption of “safe third country” to that country;   STRONGLY URGED the authorities to intensify their efforts in reforming the asylum system in order to afford effective access to means of legal entry, in particular border procedures in line with Hungary’s international obligations, and invited them to establish a timeline for the legislative process, to present a draft legislative proposal and to keep the Committee informed of all relevant developments in the legislative process;   EXHORTED the authorities to terminate, without further delay, the practice of removing asylum-seekers to Serbia pursuant to section 5 of the State Borders Act without their identification or examination of their individual situation;   REITERATED its call on the authorities to introduce an effective remedy providing a person alleging that their expulsion procedure is “collective” in nature with an effective possibility of challenging the expulsion decision by having a sufficiently thorough examination of their complaints carried out by an independent and impartial domestic forum, in line with the Court’s case-law;   INVITED the authorities to submit an updated action plan, including information on all the above issues, by 30 June   2024, and decided to resume consideration of this group, in the light of the information received, at their DH meeting in September 2024;   ENVISAGED taking new action to ensure that Hungary abides by its obligations deriving from the Court’s judgments in this group of cases, should no tangible progress be achieved by that meeting as regards the issues mentioned above.