A/HRC/44/42/Add.1 person, also known as the Dublin III regulation; directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast); directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of asylum seekers; directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on return; and directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on qualification for asylum. Relevant regional proceedings 12. In January 2014, the European Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Hungary and two other member States, as it found that they had not fully implemented all the provisions of directive 2011/95/EU. In January 2019, the Commission decided to send reasoned opinions to Hungary and the two other countries for failing to notify the measures taken to implement the current standards provided in the directive. In its reasoned opinion of 2019, the Commission stated that the Government of Hungary had failed to provide a response to the formal notice in 2014. The Commission also stated that it had found the Hungarian transposing measures incomplete with respect to two paragraphs of the directive, but without elaborating on the extent to which the transposing measures were not satisfactory. The countries concerned, including Hungary, were given two months to notify the Commission of the relevant measures taken to ensure the full implementation of the directive, otherwise the Commission might refer the cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union (European Court of Justice). In its additional response to the reasoned opinion, sent in January 2020, the Government of Hungary informed the Commission of the amendments carried out recently, inter alia in order to provide a more precise implementation of the paragraphs of the directive in question that had been challenged. The amendments were promulgated in December 2019 and the Government of Hungary informed the Commission thereof in January 2020. No response has yet been received. 13. In 2015, the European Commission initiated a second infringement procedure against Hungary as it found the national asylum legislation in some instances to be incompatible with European Union law (specifically, the recast asylum procedures directive 2013/32/EU and directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings). Following a series of exchanges at both the administrative and political levels, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion in December 2017. After analysing the reply by the Hungarian authorities and in view of new legislation adopted by the Hungarian parliament, the Commission decided that it would no longer pursue 4 of the 11 issues identified in the complementary letter of formal notice. However, the Commission considered that the majority of the concerns raised had still not been addressed. Thus in July 2018, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the European Court of Justice, as it found that Hungarian legislation was incompatible with European Union law, in particular regarding asylum procedures in transit zones, conditions of reception and decisions on returns.1 The case is pending with the Court. 14. In July 2018, the European Commission initiated a third infringement procedure against Hungary, with regard to new legislation criminalizing activities that support asylum and residence applications and further restricting the right to request asylum in Hungary. In addition, the legislation prevents people who are subject to a criminal procedure under the same law from approaching external borders, including the transit zones where asylum seekers are held at the border with Serbia, thus restricting their freedom of movement and potentially restricting asylum seekers from communicating with and obtaining assistance from relevant national, international and non-governmental organizations. 2 Sanctions for such violations can include temporary confinement, imprisonment for one year or a ban on entering certain areas. The new legislation includes new grounds of admissibility, which allow an application to be deemed inadmissible if an asylum seeker did not enter the country directly from where their life or freedom were at risk. 3 In January 2019, in the second step of the procedure, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Hungary, which was given two months to respond. The Hungarian authorities informed the Special 1 2 3 4 See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/EN/IP_18_4522. See section 5 (1c) of the Act on State Borders in conjunction with art. 353 (1) of the Penal Code. See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4522.