An Afghan national requested international protection in France, claiming fear of persecution by the Taliban on account of his work in the national Afghan army between 2004 and 2007 and his alleged westernisation. By decision of 20 July 2020, the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected the request as inadmissible as the applicant was previously provided protection in Hungary.

The CNDA ruled on the question of which are the necessary elements to confirm the existence of international protection obtained in another EU Member State for the purposes of the application of article L. 531-32 of the CESEDA. The court held that in the absence of an official document from the authorities of the Member State who granted protection, proving that protection was granted, the existence of such protection can be ascertained on the basis of consistent evidence and indications from the case file, and relying on comparisons of the fingerprints taken from the applicant at the time of submitting his application in France, in accordance with Article 9 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation, with those taken previously in another Member State. The court further added that the applicant’s statements on the granting of international protection must also be considered.

The CNDA also examined the effectiveness of protection provided in Hungary and the general conditions prevailing there. The CNDA relied on a report of the European Parliament on the Integration of refugees in Greece, Hungary and Italy from December 2017 and on the report of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee concerning Hungary published in April 2022. The court concluded that there were no systematic and general deficiencies in Hungary that would reach the particularly high level of severity in the reception of applicants and beneficiaries of protection, although there are difficulties particularly with regard to the integration of refugees due to language barriers, lack of interpreters, access to accommodation, lack of integration programs for employment and lack of coordination between state authorities. With regard to individual circumstances, the court observed that the applicant had not approached the Hungarian authorities to enjoy medical and social benefits for beneficiaries of international protection but merely invoked general considerations unrelated to his own living conditions in Hungary.