CAT/C/22/D/62/1996
page 5
State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication
4.1
On 14 February 1997 the Committee transmitted the communication to the
State party for comments. The State party challenged the admissibility of the
communication in submissions dated 18 November 1998 and 14 December 1998.
4.2
The State party explains that the basic provisions concerning the right
of aliens to enter or to remain in Hungary are contained in the Act of 1993 on
the Entry, Stay in Hungary and Immigration of Foreigners (Aliens Act),
section 27 of Government Decree No. 64/1994 and section 44 of Minister of
Interior Decree No. 9/1994. It submits that since the submission of the
author’s communication, Act CXXXIX on Asylum (1997) and several ministerial
decrees have been enacted. As a result, it can be asserted that the Hungarian
legal system does provide for an effective protection against refoulement and
ensure the enforcement of the provisions of the Convention.
4.3
The State party states that the author crossed the Hungarian-Romanian
border illegally on 20 February 1996. His purpose was to continue, via
Austria, to Germany, where he has relatives. On 1 March 1996, he was
arrested by Hungarian border guards upon attempting to cross the
Hungarian-Austrian border with false documents. The Alien Police Department
of the Györ Border Guard Directorate seized the documents and sent them to the
agencies that had apparently issued them through the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs. On 3 March 1996, the Directorate issued an expulsion order
effective 7 March 1996. The author submitted an application to the asylum
authorities, after which the Directorate suspended the implementation of the
expulsion order.
4.4
Throughout the Hungarian immigration process, the author advanced
essentially the same allegations as those he submits in support of his
communication to the Committee. In its decision of 4 April 1996, the Budapest
Local Agency of the Office for Refugees and Migration Affairs, the asylum
authority of the first instance, found that the author’s application for
asylum was motivated by his collaboration with the PKK and his fear of
reprisals, and not by fear of discrimination or persecution by the Turkish
authorities. His application was therefore denied.
4.5
The State party confirms the author’s account of the asylum procedure,
i.e. that the second instance of the Office for Refugees and Migration
Affairs rejected the author’s appeal on 16 September 1996 and that his
application for judicial review to the Pest Central District Court was denied
on 10 October 1996.
4.6
It is further submitted that at the time of the author’s submission to
the Committee, his appeal for judicial review was still pending before the
Budapest Municipal Court. The Court rejected the appeal on 23 January 1997 on
the grounds, inter alia, that it did not contain any new circumstances that
would warrant alteration of the ruling of the court of first instance and that
the administrative authorities had applied the law correctly when rejecting
the author’s asylum claim.
4.7
The author initiated additional procedures before the Hungarian
immigration authorities. Thus, on 21 May 1998, he submitted a new application