What changes, if any, has Hungary made to its asylum law and practice since the ECJ’s 2020 and 2024 rulings?
Executive summary
Hungary closed the controversial border “transit zones” and introduced an embassy-based “declaration of intent” system and emergency rules under a prolonged “state of crisis,” but those steps have not satisfied the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU/ECJ) and the European Commission, which found continued systemic breaches and imposed large fines in 2024 [1] [2] [3]. Independent monitors and asylum-law databases report that statutory and practical barriers — pushbacks, limited access to in-country application procedures, suspension of key Asylum Act provisions under emergency law, and effectively outsourcing applications abroad — have persisted, leaving Hungary non‑compliant in the view of EU bodies [4] [5] [6].
1. What the ECJ rulings said and required
The ECJ’s 2020 judgment found Hungary in breach of EU asylum law for practices including detention in transit camps and restrictions that prevented effective access to asylum procedures, and ordered remedying those breaches; the Court reaffirmed and extended that finding in rulings culminating in a June 2024 decision that Hungary had still not implemented the required changes and must pay a lump sum and daily penalties until it complied [3] [2] [7]. The 2024 judgment characterized Hungary’s conduct as an “unprecedented and exceptionally serious breach” of EU law and specifically targeted legal designs that forced applicants to seek protection abroad and restricted in‑country access to procedures [2] [8].
2. Formal legislative changes Hungary points to
Following the 2020 rulings Budapest closed the Röszke and Tompa container “transit zones” and passed a 2020 law creating an embassy‑based “declaration of intent” route that requires would‑be applicants to seek permission via Hungarian embassies in third countries rather than applying on national territory — a change the government says replaces the transit‑zone regime [1] [2]. Hungary has also maintained a long‑running “state of crisis due to mass migration” framework, introduced in 2015 and used to suspend parts of the Asylum Act and to justify exceptional procedures [4] [5].
3. How practice has changed — or not — on the ground
Despite formal changes, monitoring groups and EU bodies document that access to asylum in practice remains severely restricted: only a handful of people applied in Hungary in 2024 (reported as 29), embassy procedures produced no positive entry recommendations, and authorities continued refusals and pushbacks instead of conducting merits procedures on national territory, effectively outsourcing access to protection [5] [4] [6]. The “state of crisis” has been repeatedly invoked to derogate from normal asylum safeguards and to authorise summary removals, which critics say perpetuates the core violations the ECJ identified [4].
4. Enforcement pressure and Budapest’s political response
The ECJ’s June 2024 ruling imposed a €200 million lump sum and a €1 million daily penalty until compliance, and the Commission has pursued infringement/letters of formal notice — steps that the Hungarian government publicly rejects and has failed to pay on schedule, prompting further Commission collection requests and political retaliation rhetoric from Budapest [2] [9] [10] [11]. Hungary has signalled it will not implement the EU Asylum and Migration Pact obligations and has at times framed ECJ actions as attacks on border security, while also lodging legal challenges to the fines [5] [9] [12].
5. Assessment: changes made but not sufficient for compliance
The record shows Hungary made formal, visible changes — closing transit camps and enacting embassy procedures — but those measures did not address the ECJ’s central concerns about effective, in‑country access to asylum, individualized assessments, and lawful safeguards against pushbacks; EU institutions and independent monitors therefore judge Hungary non‑compliant and continue to press for concrete procedural access and judicial remedies [1] [3] [5]. Alternative narratives exist: the Hungarian government argues its measures protect public order and border security and contends the ECJ oversteps, but the Court and monitoring organisations conclude the legal architecture and its deployment keep substantive barriers to asylum in place [2] [4].