Implementing judgments in the field of asylum and migration on odd days Executive summary Due to the politicized nature of asylum and migration, the relevant EU legislation, UN Conventions, the European Convention on Human Rights and even domestic legislation are not always respected. Litigation, therefore, often results in positive judgments, establishing the breach of the law. However, the anti-migration policies pursued by Governments do not stop there. Non-implementation of judgments in the field of migration and asylum has become more and more frequent in recent years, in order to maintain these policies. This study analyses the implementation of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) judgments, UN decisions and leading European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments in the field of asylum and migration in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. It further looks into relevant examples of where the non-implementation of domestic court judgments reveals serious and systemic problems. Amongst the five countries involved in the study, Hungary rates highest in the non-implementation of judgments. It is the only country amongst the research countries in which the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe did not close any of the ECtHR cases in the asylum and migration field, and the only country that was referred by the European Commission to the CJEU over its failure to comply with a CJEU judgment. Poland follows closely, having implemented only one ECtHR judgment out of seven, but shows a better picture regarding CJEU judgments, as it had so far implemented all of them, with the exception of the EU relocation judgment. Similarly, Czechia also failed to implement the EU relocation judgment, but is an example of good practice when it comes to the implementation of ECtHR judgments. Slovenia has implemented all migration related CJEU judgments and does not have any ECtHR cases in this field. Slovakia did not comply with the interim measure issued by the ECtHR, but the case was considered isolated. Otherwise, it has had no migration related CJEU judgments. The non-implementation of domestic judgments was, however, an issue in all five countries. The study identified various methods of non-implementation according to the extent of non-implementation and whether it appears in legislative deficiencies and/or in the non-compliance of the authorities’ practice. Some common areas of non-implementation have also been found, ranging from access to the procedure, through personal liberty and judicial review: (1) immigration detention (Cz, Hun, Pl, Slo), (2) EU relocation scheme (Cz, Hun, Pl), (3) collective expulsion and access to asylum (Hun, Pl, Slo), (4) access to classified data in national security cases (Pl, Sk), (5) statelessness (Cz, Hun) (6) effective remedies against expulsion (Cz, Hun, Pl, Sk) and (7) disregard of court’s instructions in repeated asylum procedures on the merits (Hun, Sk, Slo). While the extent and form of the non-implementation of judgments differ in all researched countries, it seems that the more instrumentalized the issue of migration in a certain country is, the greater the risk of non-compliance with jurisprudence may become. The Governments openly question and intentionally ignore the authority of the courts in politically sensitive questions. On a positive note, notwithstanding the stance of Hungary and Poland, the primacy of EU law has not been ruled upon by the Constitutional Courts in either of these two countries in terms of CJEU cases concerning asylum and migration, despite such a submission having been initiated by the Hungarian government. The aim of the study is to bring attention to the worrying practices of non-implementation of judgments and the implications on the rule of law, as executing domestic and international court decisions is one of its cornerstones. Through non-implementation, unlawful legislation and practices are preserved, the consequences of which severely affect the rights of a very vulnerable population, leaving them without an effective remedy. 4