11 court, reviewing the negative decision on family reunification has already ruled by referencing the TB judgment that the examination of the dependency limiting it solely to the health status of the applicant is unlawful.20 The jurisprudence of the courts is not unified though, as in another case, without mentioning the TB judgment, the court explicitly rejected the need for complex examination.21 ( 6 ) Insufficient implementation Sometimes the legislation is amended following the judgment, but the implementation is still deemed insufficient. An example is the implementation by Hungary of the CJEU ruling in the Ahmed case,22 which concerns the exclusion from subsidiary protection for those who commit a serious crime. The Court ruled that the asylum authority/court deciding on the asylum application had to assess the seriousness of the crime by carrying out a full investigation into all circumstances of the individual case concerned. The Hungarian Parliament amended the asylum law, with an explicit reference to the CJEU ruling in its official reasoning.23 Nevertheless, the current legislation is still not in line with the requirements the CJEU laid down in the Ahmed judgment, as it sets out specific cases according to which an asylum seeker must automatically be excluded from international protection. Therefore, the obligation of individual assessment is still infringed upon by the applicable law.24 (7 ) Implementation in practice but not in the law It is interesting to observe that certain judgments were implemented by changing the practice, but not the legal provisions which were found to be incompatible with EU standards. These provisions have not been repealed, but are merely temporarily not applied. Are the Governments waiting for the moment when such provisions could be used again? A revealing example of such practice can be observed in Hungary, where provisions relating to transit zone detention and “safe transit country” as an inadmissible ground are still in the law, but have not been applied in practice (see p. 21 and p. 33). ( 8 ) Unreasonably delayed implementation Finally, it is necessary to note the example of unreasonably delayed implementation, in cases where despite the ultimately positive result, it took the authorities too long to comply with the judgment. Such an example can be found in Slovenia, where the Supreme Court ruled in November 2017 that an applicant for international protection had to be provided with the assistance of an interpreter in order to file a lawsuit in an administrative dispute, if so requested and if communication with the legal representative was otherwise hindered.25 The Migration Directorate continued to reject the requests of refugee counsellors for interpreters26 until the amended International Protection Act-1A entered into force four years later, including the provision under which applicants and refugee counsellors are entitled to the assistance of an interpreter during the procedure before the Administrative or Supreme Court.27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Metropolitan Regional Court, judgment no. 38.K.701.960/2020/6. Judgment no. 16.K.706.405/2020/8, point [26] of the Metropolitan Regional Court, 5 November 2020. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court, Kfv.II.37.074/2021/2, 16 February 2021. C 369/17, Ahmed, 13 September 2018. See the official reasoning to Act no. CXXXIII of 2018 on the amendment of certain laws in relation to migration: https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/03366/03366.pdf, paras. 62-65. Read about how the current legislation violates EU law: https://helsinki.hu/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/info-note-exclusion.pdf. I Up 226/2017, 22.11.2017. See for example: I U 1934/2020-6, 7.2.2021. Art. 11(1) IPA-1A.