The request for international protection lodged by a Russian national in Hungary was denied on 17 June 2020, pursuant to Decision No 106-M13159/28/2020 which also ordered the applicant to leave the territory. The decision noted that the applicant, who claimed to be a political activist and blogger, would not be prosecuted for his activities in Russia as country-of-origin information suggested that people carrying out the activities that the applicant claimed to be involved in were more likely to be fined than arrested.  

The applicant appealed this decision before the Debrecen General Court stating that the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (NDGAP) had failed to investigate whether opposition bloggers were being prosecuted.  

The Debrecen General Court annulled the contested decision. The court acknowledged that while it was true that Russia had partly decriminalised hate crimes in January 2019, other sections of the criminal code continued to be used as a means of silencing those against the regime. The court further noted that the dissemination of news and the violation of State symbols were punishable by a fine. 

NDGAP appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. NDGAP stated that the decision was unlawful on the grounds that the country-of-origin information used had not been adequately assessed.  NDGAP claimed that the court relied on articles from news sites known to be critical of the political regime in Russia and did not adequately compare the information from the news sites to the information provided in NDGAP’s original decision of 17 June 2020.  

The Supreme Court concluded that the court had successfully established the material facts but did not assess the information correctly and thus delivered an unsubstantiated judgment. The Supreme Court noted that the court had only provided the titles of some of the country-of-origin resources and, as such, it was difficult to determine the relationship between the different sources and how each source related to the applicant. Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the court failed to explain either the relevance of news articles which were published after the original decision was issued or the relevance of articles focusing on well-known Russian opposition leader.  

The Supreme Court further noted that it was not apparent from the court’s judgment how it had assessed the applicant’s political activities. The Supreme Court added that it was not clear whether the court had drawn certain conclusions from the applicant’s statements.  

As a result of the above, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment issued by Debrecen General Court and ordered the court to re-examine the case. According to the Supreme Court, the new judgment must explain why country-of-origin information used by UNDGAP is not considered by the court as well as the relevance of any new country-of-origin information introduced by the court.