-
Abstract
The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary reflected a big turn of the ECtHR towards a practical and realistic approach. Although the Grand Chamber found that Hungary by choosing to use inadmissibility grounds and expel the applicants to Serbia failed to carry out a thorough assessment of the Serbian asylum system, including the risk of summary removal, contrary to the Chamber it found that a confinement of 23 days in 2015 did not constitute a de facto deprivation of liberty. This paradigm shift is already visible in further decisions of the Court, and it could even serve as a basis for a new direction when reforming the Common European Asylum System.
Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law |
|
Article | The ECtHR’s Grand Chamber Judgment in Ilias and Ahmed Versus Hungary: A Practical and Realistic ApproachCan This Paradigm Shift Lead the Reform of the Common European Asylum System? |
Keywords | ECHR, Hungarian transit zone, deprivation of liberty, concept of safe third country, Common European Asylum System |
Authors | Ágnes Töttős |
DOI | 10.5553/HYIEL/266627012020008001011 |
Author's information |
Purchase access
You can purchase online access to this article. You will receive 24 hrs access @ € 17,50 (excl. VAT).
24 hrs access | € 17,50 (excl. VAT) |
Activate your code
If you have an access code, please activate it here.