Hungary - Győr Administrative and Labour Court, 24 June 2016, 17.K.27.132/2016/6

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
24-06-2016
Court Name:
Győr Administrative and Labour Court
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Hungary - Article 50 ofAct CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative proceedings and services
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) based on the fact that it did not meet its duty to actively cooperate in drawing up the facts that support the claim of the applicant.

Facts: 

The applicant had already applied for asylum twice. The first time the process was terminated since he left Hungary.

The second procedure ended with a decision of inadmissibility that was quashed by the Court and a new procedure was ordered.

In the current, third case, the applicant stated that he left Iran because he was denied the right to freely express himself. He was detained once for not complying with Iranian law (criticism, not abiding with religious rules) in 2002, and having served 18 months, he left for Norway. Upon returning in 2011 (believing that his case had been forgotten) he was again sentenced for 4 years in prison, where he was released after approx. 2,5 years. While there, he married a woman he met in Norway. Immediately after his release he asked a smuggler to help him travel to Europe. Having applied for asylum in Hungary, he left for Norway, which returned him to Hungary under Dublin III.

The applicant submitted documents: the decision that ordered his imprisonment and his marriage certificate. The OIN rejected the application on grounds of credibility. It argued that the applicant was not consistent about the length of his stay in prison (2-2,5 years) and that he was not clear about whether he got married while in prison or after the sentence had terminated. The OIN also pointed out that if the applicant got married while allegedly in prison, this might indicate that although he had been sentenced, he never served the sentence. The OIN also found that the country of origin information does not indicate a risk of refoulement. 

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Court in its decision argued that the OIN has the duty to explore the factual basis of the application in order to reach a well-founded decision. Article 50 of the Act on the general rules of administrative proceedings and services (Act CXL of 2004) states that it is the duty of the authority to thoroughly examine the case in question and to find out the relevant facts in order to be able to draw up a correct factual basis for the given claim. The OIN did not meet this legal obligation since it only took the statements of the applicant into account and disregarded the documents submitted. The OIN also did not hold a new hearing where contradictions could have been resolved but rather used them to support the decision rejecting the application. The Court ruled that the fact that the OIN disregarded the documents submitted constitutes such a serious breach of law that this act in itself would also be enough to quash the decision.

Outcome: 

Appeal granted, decision quashed, new procedure ordered.

Observations/Comments: 

An English translation of the case can be found at the top of the page.