Mr. Justice Green finds that two Iranian asylum seekers would be at risk of refoulement if removed to Hungary
The High Court ruled in a judgment handed down on Friday that returns of asylum seekers to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation are unlawful, Landmark Chambers reported.
Landmark Chambers' Declan O'Callaghan and Carine Patry acted for the claimants.
Image credit: WikipediaIn the lengthy judgment (which EIN members can read here), Mr. Justice Green found that the two Iranian claimants would be at risk of refoulement if removed to Hungary and such refoulement would breach their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The Home Office had certified the claimants' asylum applications as it contended that the system for assessing asylum in Hungary adheres sufficiently to EU and international law for Hungary to be considered a "safe" country where there is no material risk of refoulement or any other violation of the Claimants' fundamental rights.
The judgment also considered conditions in Serbia, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey, as the claimants argued that they faced "chain refoulement" whereby they would be channelled along a chain of states if returned to Hungary.
Mr. Justice Green concluded in the judgment: "there is a significant risk that the Claimants would be at risk of refoulement if removed to Hungary. I therefore accept the Claimants' submissions in this respect. In each of the States concerned the UNHCR, NGOs and other bodies (such as the European Parliament) whose views command respect have identified systemic and/or operational risks in the asylum and judicial systems which casts into serious doubt the likelihood of the Claimants, were they to be removed to that State, being able effectively to advance their claims to international protection. As such they face a risk of refoulement in those states, which risk applies to transfer to Iran. That is the position as it stands as of the date of this judgment. In my view it is not arguable for the Secretary of State to contend (as she does) that in effect nothing has changed since she took the impugned decisions. On the contrary a vast amount has changed."
Mr. Justice Green, however, rejected the argument that the claimants would be at risk of unlawful detention if they were removed to Hungary on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to make that conclusion.
As Landmark Chambers noted, Mr. Justice Green added some caveats to his decision that the claimants would be at risk of refoulement, namely that the decision he reached was based on the evidence before him as of now, and that relevant evidence may change any future assessment.
The judgment stated: "It is nonetheless right to record that there are some important qualifications to the judgment which, because the position in the States concerned is in a state of almost perpetual flux, hence reflects the position as it stands as of the date of the judgment. This ruling is not therefore a bar to the Secretary of State conducting a far more fundamental analysis of the facts as they evolve and emerge and forming a new conclusion."