A/HRC/44/42/Add.1 Government-sponsored legal aid system has limited capacity owing to various factors, including the lack of adequate interpretation services, the limited provision of procedural information and the lack of direct contact with asylum seekers during the procedure. In addition, the Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the lack of substantive judicial review of the administrative decisions on asylum claims made by the asylum authorities and the absence of assessment and review of the merits of the claims. 41. In 2018, a new inadmissibility ground for asylum claims was introduced into the legislation. According to the amended legislation, an application shall be considered inadmissible if an applicant has arrived through a third country where she or he is “not exposed to persecution” or a risk of serious harm, or if “sufficient protection” is available in that country.12 Claims submitted from individuals who had transited through Serbia were therefore all declared inadmissible because Hungary considered Serbia to be a safe third country.13 The Special Rapporteur was informed that when reviewing those administrative decisions, the competent court in Hungary frequently referred cases back to the asylum authority for an in-merit assessment. Judges acting in asylum cases also initiated preliminary ruling proceedings before the European Court of Justice. 14 The asylum authorities stopped applying the new inadmissibility ground as of July 2019. 42. Under general rules, asylum seekers are given seven days to challenge the inadmissibility of their claims. However, during a crisis situation, the general procedural time frame is shortened to three days, according to section 80 K (1) of the Asylum Act. Asylum seekers are given only three days to lodge an appeal against a rejection on the basis of admissibility and prove that Serbia is not a safe country for them. Judges at the Budapest Capital Administrative and Labour Law Court, which is in charge of reviewing appeals in relation to asylum claims, are required by law to conclude decisions on rejected applications due to inadmissibility within eight days. The Special Rapporteur learned that at the time of the visit, the vast majority of asylum cases the court was working on related to inadmissibility, since almost all asylum claims were submitted from the transit zones. These cases were automatically considered inadmissible by the asylum authorities, while the merits of the claims had not been examined. In a judicial review proceeding concerning the inadmissibility of the asylum claim, the Court is not empowered to assess the merits of the application either. 43. Furthermore, the power of the reviewing courts to overturn administrative decisions made by the asylum authorities on the inadmissibility and merits of asylum claims was revoked in September 2015 through amendments to the relevant domestic legislation. 15 Following the amendments, the reviewing court no longer has the power to overturn administrative decisions on asylum claims. The court can only annul decisions that are considered unlawful and order the relevant authorities to conduct a new procedure. 16 The Special Rapporteur learned that apparently the asylum law is not the only field of law in which courts are precluded from overturning administrative decisions subject to judicial review. 44. On 29 July 2019, shortly after the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Hungary, the European Court of Justice delivered a judgment on case C556/17 Alekszij Torubarov v. Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal. The Court stated that article 46 (3) of directive 2013/32/EU, read in conjunction with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that if a first instance court or tribunal has found that an applicant must be granted international protection, after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment, “that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the 12 13 14 15 16 10 Section 51 (2) (f) of Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum. UNHCR considers that both in law and in practice, the application of the new inadmissibility ground and the relevant judicial review provision are at variance with international and European Union legal standards regarding the adoption of decisions based on safe country concepts and the judicial review of such decisions. See “UNHCR statement on safe country concepts and the right to an effective remedy in admissibility procedures” (September 2019). The ruling of the European Court of Justice is discussed in detail in para. 44. Law No. CXL of 2015 Amending Certain Laws in the Context of Managing Mass Immigration. Ibid., art. 68 (5).