Implementing judgments in the field of asylum and migration on odd days (2 ) “Apparent” implementation Another method of non-implementation was observed only in Hungary, mainly in the context of access to asylum/ embassy procedures (see chapter IV.3.). With regard to domestic court judgments that annulled the Immigration Authority’s decision and ordered a new procedure, the Immigration Authority initially complied with the judgment and initiated a new procedure. However, the compliance was only apparent, as the procedure was immediately suspended, either because of the initiation of a Constitutional Court review, or by mere reference to such an already pending review, which was not even directly connected to the main procedure. (3 ) Adopting new legislation/practices overruling court judgments A very worrying method, which is also common in some of the other studied countries, is the adoption of new legislation that would maintain the contested position of the Government, but would at the same time deprive the issued judgments of their effect, as they were based on the previous legislation. Sometimes new legislation is already adopted prior to the judgments, as the Government anticipates the direction of the courts, and therefore prepares the field in advance in order to avoid any changes that the judgment might bring to their policies. Such an example can be found in Slovakia, where legislative amendments concerning national security related cases had been introduced, even before the Constitutional Court issued a ruling declaring the contested provisions previously in force unconstitutional (see p. 28). Or in Slovenia, where the amendments to the Foreigners Act restricting access to the asylum procedure were reintroduced, despite previously having been ruled unconstitutional (see p. 25). In Czechia, the Foreign Police introduced a new age assessment method, after the Supreme Administrative Court and Constitutional Court ruled that the margin of error of previous methods used had to be respected (see p. 13-14). Also in Czechia, the Government adopted a new legislation regulating statelessness purposefully with the aim to circumvent the jurisprudence guaranteeing certain rights to the applicants for stateless status (see p. 29). (4 ) Implementation in the concrete case without following the judgment’s general principles in other similar cases A common method of non-implementation present in all studied countries is when the authorities comply with the judgment in the individual case, but refuse to properly address the underlying systemic issues and disrespect the standards that the judgment brought forward in other similar cases, despite the issue at stake being identical, and not depending on particular facts. The judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court regarding the refusal of entry to persons arriving at eastern Polish border by train is such an example (see p. 23), as well as the issue of access to the essence of grounds in national security cases in Poland (see p. 27). Having to always request an interim measure from ECtHR in order to provide applicants with food in transit zone detention in Hungary, despite the identical legal situation in all cases, or the statelessness judgments in Czechia (see p. 29) are also representative examples of this method of non-implementation (see p. 15). (5 ) Implementation varies in practice Sometimes the implementation of judgments varies in practice, as not all authorities follow the relevant judgments to the same extent. This can, for example, be observed in Czechia regarding the detention of children accompanied by family members, where some police units, as well as the courts, maintain the position that children are not actually detained, but merely “accommodated” in the detention centre, despite a Constitutional Court ruling to the contrary (see p.12). Or the implementation of the CJEU TB case17 in Hungary, which did not require a change in legislation, but in practice. The Court ruled that the dependency clause in the Family Reunification Directive has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant aspects of the personal situation of a refugee’s siblings. Regrettably, though, as per the experience of the HHC, the Immigration Authority still fails to apply the complex examination of the dependency condition18 and categorically excludes mental health issues from sicknesses that might justify dependency.19 As opposed to the practice of the Immigration Authority, there are instances where the 17 18 19 C 519/18, TB, 12 December 2019. Decisions of the NDGAP no. 106-1-11174/6/2020-T, 11 March 2020 (first instance) and no. 106-T-12841/1/2020, 8 May 2020 (second instance). Decisions of the NDGAP no. 106-1-13733/2020-T, 30 January 2020 (first instance) and no. 106-T-8959/2/2020, 31 March 2020 (second instance). 10