The case concerned applicants from Azerbaijan who contested a Dublin transfer decision to Hungary. The Federal Office for Migration and Asylum (BAMF) had already submitted applications for admission under the Dublin III Regulation to Hungary on 15 August 2022 for the husband and father and on 17 August 2022 for applicants 1 to 3. On 18 August 2022, the Hungarian authorities agreed to take back all the applicants, and the asylum applications were rejected as inadmissible by BAMF.

BAMF concluded that Hungary was responsible to examine the asylum applications and that there were no systemic deficiencies in the asylum and reception system to prevent the transfers. The applicants contested the decisions and argued that the Hungarian asylum system presents multiple shortcomings, including access to procedure and access to judicial remedies.

The Regional Administrative Court of Aachen first noted that the Hungarian Government Decree Crisis due to mass immigration was in force since 2016 and extended constantly. This decree allows, according to the AIDA report, the police to return every illegal immigrant or illegally staying asylum seeker. The court noted that according to reports the number of asylum applicants is falling due to the restrictions imposed on access to procedures in Hungary and highlighted that these restrictions are targeting those asylum seekers who entered Hungary from Serbia (CJEU judgment of 17 December 2020, C-808/18).

The court allowed the appeal and annulled the Dublin transfer decision as it considered that there are substantial grounds for believing that the asylum procedure in Hungary has systemic weaknesses that pose a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter. The court consulted several reports from civil society organisations and statements from the Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights addressed to Hungarian authorities on the issue of arbitrary returns of asylum applicants. Also, it noted that access to housing for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection is difficult, and there is no support from the state or NGOs. The court noted, based on AIDA reports, that access to employment might be difficult for the applicants because their children will not be entitled to schooling the same way as nationals, and at least one of the parents will have to look after the children. Thus, it considered that it is difficult to secure a minimum livelihood for a family of four in Hungary.

The court consulted the EUAA Asylum Report 2022, page 103, concerning a decision from the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration where the latter did not receive a clear reply from Hungary on whether Dublin returnees in possession of an expired or valid residence permit issued in Hungary would be able to submit an asylum application on the territory of Hungary based on the special conditions that have been applicable since May 2020.

In light of the above-mentioned, the court annulled the inadmissibility decision and considered that Germany was responsible to examine the asylum application. BAMF was thus ordered to examine the case on the merits.