The Ministry of Interior has received no official information on the alleged measures introduced by the European Court of Human Rights on 27 March 2017, as included in the statement issued by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. We have no knowledge of any legally binding ruling suspending the transfer of eight teenagers and a pregnant migrant.
In view of the fact that no decision has been made on transferring any migrants, there is nothing to suspend. Accordingly, the latest overzealous action by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee is clearly an unprincipled attempt to attack the reinforced legal border barrier that came into force today. The organisation is attacking the goals of the reinforced legal border barrier, that from today nobody will be able to enter the territory of Hungary and the European Union in an uncontrolled manner.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee turned to the European Court of Human Rights on 24 March 2017 claiming that the Immigration Office wants to transfer nine of its clients to a transit zone. However, there exists no such decision with relation to which the Helsinki Committee turned to the Court. The legislation, with relation to which it asked for the suspension of the decision by the Hungarian authorities, was also not in effect.
According to regulations, the immigration authorities determine the location of mandatory accommodation for asylum-seekers. When the Hungarian Helsinki Committee began its legal action, this could be an open receiving station, a closed and guarded immigration accommodation or private accommodation, or in the case of a minor with no adult accompaniment a child protection institution. The asylum-seekers involved were also accommodated, and continue to be accommodated, in a receiving station and a child protection institution, and in contrast to the claims made by the Helsinki Committee, no decision was made on changing their place of accommodation.
In view of the fact that there exists no such decision on transferring these asylum-seekers, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee had no legal grounds for going to court. It is interesting to note that one may only turn to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if all domestic opportunities for legal redress have been exhausted, which lacking a decision on changing mandatory accommodation could clearly not have occurred.
We are interestedly awaiting the Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s explanation of why it turned to the Court to attack an unintroduced measure of an as yet unapplied law in a manner that is contrary to its creed.