Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Hungarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

The report was previously updated in June 2025.

National context

A quasi state of exception has been introduced into Hungarian law and applicable since September 2015, titled the “state of crisis due to mass migration”. During this state of crisis special rules apply to third-country nationals irregularly entering and/or staying in Hungary and to those seeking asylum, and certain provisions of the Asylum Act are suspended. The state of crisis has been used as a pretext to deviate from several EU law provisions on asylum. Ten and a half years later, the state of crisis due to mass migration is still in force. This also means that police are still authorised to carry out pushbacks of irregularly staying migrants across the border fence (including those who wish to seek asylum in Hungary) from any part of the country, without any legal procedure or opportunity to challenge this measure.

International protection

A new asylum system (embassy procedure) introduced in May 2020, severely limiting access to asylum, including for those who are legally staying in Hungary, is still in force. Asylum applications can only be lodged after a declaration of intent is approved by the asylum authority. Declarations of intent can only be lodged at the Hungarian embassy in Kyiv (Ukraine) or Belgrade (Serbia), except for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, family members of recognised refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and those being subject to forced measures, and measures or punishments affecting personal liberty. This system was found incompatible with EU law, as the CJEU judgement C-823/21 from 22 June 2023 clearly states. In August 2025, another exception was added, so that Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UaSC) who are residing in Hungary can now apply for asylum.

The Hungarian Government still maintains its stance that it has no intention of implementing the EU Asylum and Migration Pact.[1]

Asylum procedure

• No access to the asylum procedure: Although the number of asylum seekers increased in 2025 due to the additional exceptions added (i.e., detained persons or persons with compulsory placement of stay and UaSC can now apply for asylum), the number of asylum seekers is still very low (113 asylum applicants). As in 2024, no recommendation on the approval of entry from NDGAP was issued in the embassy procedure. The asylum authority still continues to issue refusal decisions to those who entered Hungary legally and try to apply for asylum, stating that they are requesting something impossible, as according to the current legislative framework in place, they should submit an intent at the Hungarian Embassy prior to being allowed to apply for asylum in Hungary, despite clear judgements of domestic courts to conduct an in-merit procedure (see Refusal of applications without examination on the merits under Admissibility procedures).
• Push backs (see Access to the territory and pushbacks):
  • Decrease due to the change in migration pathways: In 2025, 5,580 pushbacks were carried out, which is similar to 2024 figures, where 5,713 pushbacks were recorded. This is still a significant decrease compared with previous years, but not due to the changes in the Hungarian legislation or practice. Rather, this decline is due to a police operation and increased police presence in Northern Serbia, preventing migrants to access the Serbian Hungarian border.
  • Still no compliance with the CJEU judgement: On 13 June 2024, the CJEU ruled that Hungary failed to comply with the C-808/18 judgement (concluding, among others, that push backs are against EU law) and ordered the Member State to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 200,000,000 and a penalty payment of EUR 1,000,000 per day until the date of compliance with the judgment. The Hungarian Government’s reaction to the judgement was firm, as they have refused to pay anything up to this date and they did not make any changes in order to implement the judgement.
  • ECtHR judgements in 2025: The ECtHR issued a judgement in 3 joint cases and for the first time directly called on the Hungarian authorities to immediately stop collective expulsions and to ensure effective access to asylum. The joint judgement is also relevant, as the ECtHR considers that the “embassy procedure” did not provide for “genuine and effective access to means of legal entry”.^[2]
• No suspensive effect in appeals against expulsion: The provisions of the GRTCN Act that removed a recourse to a suspensive effect in administrative actions against a final decision ordering expulsion are still in force (see Admissibility procedure and Accelerated procedure).
• Asylum interviews: Inadequate interview conditions continued throughout 2025. In January 2026 the NDGAP changed its practice regarding the asylum interviews, and they introduced many additional questions, some of which are according to the HHC completely unnecessary. On average the interview in the regular procedure now lasts 5h (including a 20-minuntes mandatory break) (see Personal interview).
• Legal aid: Access to state legal aid continued to be ineffective in practice throughout 2025.

Reception conditions

• Extremely low occupancy of reception centres: The reception centres had very low occupancy throughout 2025 (see Reception Conditions).
• Limited access to reception facilities: In 2025 the HHC was still not allowed to access reception facilities (see Access to reception centres by third parties).
• No activities: There are no activities provided in reception centres and, apart from using the internet, the residents have nothing to do the whole day.

Detention of asylum applicants

• Quasi automatic detention of people awaiting Dublin transfer: In 2025, 104 people were detained awaiting a Dublin transfer, which is an increase compared to 2024, when 83 people were detained. The HHC finds such a high number particularly worrying as it implies that the detention measure is imposed quasi automatically, taking into account also the fact that only 72 outgoing transfers were actually carried out. It should be noted that people awaiting an outgoing Dublin transfer are not considered asylum seekers in Hungary (see Detention of Asylum Seekers).
• Use of detention: Compared to 2024, there was 11.9% increase in the use of asylum detention in 2025.
• Limited access to detention facilities: In 2025, the HHC was still not allowed to access detention facilities. However, in November 2025, the Menedék Association gained access for their social worker (see Access to detention facilities).
• ECtHR judgements: In 2025, three more judgements finding breaches of the Convention with regard to detention in the transit zone were issued.[3]

Content of international protection

• Increase in rejected citizenship applications: In 2025, the rejection of applications for citizenship from beneficiaries of international protection doubled compared to 2024.
• Increase in withdrawal of international protection status: In 2025, the NDGAP withdrew 187 statuses, which is a significant increase compared to 2024, where 50 statues were withdrawn.
• Return of BIPs: Those who were previously granted international protection status by the Hungarian authorities and who return from another Member State (not voluntarily but, e.g., under a readmission agreement) face particular difficulties regarding housing and access to ID documents.
• Lack of funding: most of the funding is still focused on supporting people arriving in Hungary from Ukraine, ignoring the needs of people arriving from other countries.
• Inclusion: The absence of state-funded integration support continues to pose serious problems to persons receiving international protection status.

Temporary protection

The information given hereafter constitute a short summary of the 2025 Report on Temporary Protection, for further information, see Annex on Temporary Protection.

• Key temporary protection statistics: As of 31 December 2025, the number of temporary protection beneficiaries is still low (43,300) by regional international comparison. Over the course of 2025, only 6,091 persons registered for temporary protection, which is significantly less than the year before (8,070 persons in 2024). Hungary has also received a significant number of Ukrainian-Hungarian dual nationals who, due to their Hungarian citizenship, are not able to claim temporary protection and are therefore not included in the statistics. Nevertheless, they are also entitled to services provided to Ukrainian nationals, who apply for protection

Temporary protection procedure

• Preliminary reference for a potential breach of EU law: Under national legislation implementing the EU TP scheme, third-country nationals who had permanent residence in Ukraine are not eligible neither for temporary nor for any other adequate protection in Hungary. The Szeged Court (Szegedi Törvényszék) submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU (C-21/26) to examine if the Hungarian relevant legislation is in line with the Temporary Protection Directive, as the asylum procedure is not accessible to those who cannot apply for TP. The case is pending before the CJEU.
• Post-TPD solutions: There are no plans communicated or steps taken to prepare for the time when the Temporary Protection Directive will no longer be applicable. Given the lack of access to asylum in Hungary, the future of many TP holders is uncertain after March 2027.

Content of temporary protection

• Accommodation dependent upon area of origin in Ukraine: The Hungarian Government introduced the most restrictive housing measure among EU states in 2024, thereby making the housing area of the national TP scheme non-compliant with EU law. Since August 2024, only those are entitled to state-subsidized accommodation, who come from “war-affected areas” of Ukraine. The amendment primarily targeted Roma people arriving from the Zakarpattia region of Ukraine, which is not deemed to be war-affected. There is no clearly set criterion either as to when an area is to be regarded war-affected. The effects of these measures were still acutely felt in 2025. Many families were forced to move often, hindering their access to education and employment. In some cases, people were forced to take up exploitative employment opportunities where they received accommodation instead of a salary.
• Access to healthcare and education: Access to healthcare and education remained the most prevalent problems that beneficiaries of temporary protection faced in Hungary. In both areas, the lack of interpretation and insufficient knowledge of the relevant regulations by the institutions were the most common problems.

[1] See, for example, here.

[2] ECtHR, H.Q. v. Hungary, Application No. 46084/21, Z.A. v. Hungary, Application No. 40185/22 and A.S.A. v. Hungary, Application No. 53952/22, Judgment of 24 June 2025, available here.

[3] ECtHR, H.A. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 39498/18, Judgement of 19 June 2025, available here; M.S.H. v. Hungary, Application No. 44283/19, Judgement of 27 February 2025, available here; F.S. and A.S. v. Hungary, Application no. 50872/18, Judgement of 19 June 2025, available here.