Conformity Study for Hungary

Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their

family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the
Member States
This National Conformity Study has been prepared by Milieu Ltd. in consortium with the
Europa Institute, Edinburgh University under Contract No JLS/2007/C4/004-30-CE-
0159638/00-31. The actual conformity checking was carried out in Hungary by Dr. Traser
Julianna Sára and was concluded on 1 August. The study does not take into account any
subsequent changes in EU law and national legislation and/or administrative practice.

The views expressed herein are those of the consultants alone and do not necessarily represent
the official views of the European Commission. The national report reflects that legal
situation as it stands on 1 August 2008. No subsequent changes have been taken into account.

Milieu Ltd. (Belgium), 29 rue des Pierres, B-1000 Brussels, tel: 32 2 506 1000; Fax 32 2 514
3603; e-mail: [Link]@[Link]; web address: [Link]
 ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION TRANSPOSING
DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC ON FREE MOVEMENT OF UNION CITIZENS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 5

ABBREVIATIONS USED ....................................................................................................................... 17

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 19

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN HUNGARY...............................................................................20

1.2 FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPOSITION & IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC IN IRELAND .......20
1.2.1 Distribution of competences according to the national Constitution
1.2.2 General description of organisation of national authorities implementing
Directive 2004/38/EC [HUNGARY]............................................................................. 21

2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPOSING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC................. 22

2.1 Definitions, family members and beneficiaries ....................................................................... 26

2.2 Rights of exit and entry................................................................................................................ 29
2.3 Right of residence ........................................................................................................................ 31
2.4 Right of permanent residence................................................................................................... 45
2.5 Common provisions (Articles 22-26) .......................................................................................... 49
2.6 Restrictions on the right of entry and residence on grounds of public policy, public
security and public health.......................................................................................................... 51
2.7 Procedural safeguards against decisions restricting free movement (Article 15, and
Articles 30-31)................................................................................................................................ 56
2.8 Final provisions (Chapter VII)...................................................................................................... 60

ANNEX I: Table of concordance for Directive 2004/38/EC

ANNEX II: Compliance with Article 24(1)
ANNEX III: List of relevant national legislation and administrative acts
ANNEX IV: Selected national case law
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 4/69
Europa Institute
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

Hungary is a unitary State. Act XX. of 1949 (The Constitution of the Republic of Hungary) sets forth
as the general, guiding principle of the legal system, the rule of law and the respect of obligations
assumed under international law, which was reiterated and interpreted by the Constitutional Court in
several emblematic judgments. Sovereignty flows from the people, however pursuant to Article 19 of
the Constitution, the supreme body of State power and popular representation is the Parliament that
passes legislation within its sphere of authority. The implementation of laws is ensured by the
Government. To this regard the Government is vested with the power to pass Decrees and to adopt
Decisions, while members of the Government (the Ministers) might enact Decrees. Decrees of the
members of the Government may not be in conflict either with laws or with Government Decrees,
since their duties flow from the authorisation given to them by the previously mentioned legal
instruments.

2. Introduction to the main particularities of the legal system of the Member State relating
to the transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC.

Transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC is the result of the adoption of the Free movement Act (a
szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló
2007. évi I. törvény) and of the implementing Government Decree 113/2007 (V. 24.) (a szabad
mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I.
törvény végrehajtásáról szóló 113/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet), which took effect on 1st July 2007.

The conformity of implementing pieces of legislation is checked by the Minister of Justice and Law
enforcement that receives all draft Decrees from the Ministries; then by the Government that annuls or
amends all legally irreconcilable resolutions or measures taken by any subordinate public authorities
according to Article 35(4) of the Constitution. The judicial control is ensured by courts that may
suspend proceeding if they come across conflicting legal instruments and refer the case to the
Constitutional Court. This ex post control, which is linked to a concrete, pending case is completed by
the abstract control that might by initiated by anyone regardless judicial procedures and time limits
before the Constitutional Court.

Government Decree 113/2007 specifies in its Article 2:

The administrative proceedings specified in the FMA shall be conducted by the following
authorities:
a) the minister in charge of immigration;
b) the minister in charge of foreign policies;
c) the Office of Immigration and Nationality (hereinafter referred to as "Office");
d) the local branches of the Office (hereinafter referred to as "regional directorate");
e) the consulate officer of Hungary authorized to issue visas (hereinafter referred to
as "consulate officer");
f) the Police.

The “Minister in charge of immigration” as defined in point a) above is the Minister of Justice and
Law enforcement. The Minister supervises the activity of the Office of Immigration and Nationality
(OIN) that plays (through its regional branches) the major role in the implementation of the FMA
together with the Border Guards/Police. The OIN with national competence acts as the central aliens
policing authority and home registration activity. The consulate officer and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs play a role primarily with regard to issuing the visa. Furthermore the request for leave to enter
Hungary shall be presented to the consular officer if the person is under an entry and residence ban,
but would like to return in the event that serious grounds necessitate his or her presence.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 5/69
Europa Institute
Other institutions, such as the regional branches of the health and social security bodies or the Institute
for Pensions or the Employment Centres etc. do not have a direct role in the implementation of the
Directive, nevertheless their proceedings and administrative practice need to be checked in order to
monitor conformity with the equal treatment requirement.

3. Conclusions of the legal analysis of the transposing measures for Directive 2004/38/EC.

As regards the personal scope of the FMA, it covers EEA nationals, their family members (regardless
of their nationality) and family members of Hungarian nationals. A number of conformity issues arise
from this latter element, since non-Hungarian family members of Hungarian nationals are covered in
order to benefit from the free movement right and residence and are often treated more favourably
than other beneficiaries. Family members joining or accompanying the primary beneficiary may arrive
to Hungary from any country (the accepted countries of provenance are not limited to EEA countries),
thus Hungary does not follow a restrictive approach to this regard.

The Legal analysis of the Directive identified problems on the following grounds:

1) Entry conditions follow a formal approach in the transposing legislation.

2) With regard to the residence right in general, the most burdensome issue is the definition of
becoming an ‘unreasonable burden’. A person is considered as having become an
unreasonable burden, if he/she had recourse to elderly allowance, regular social allowance or
care contribution for three months, where the periods of entitlement do not need to be
continuous, but are aggregated over a time – without the mentioning of more favourable
treatment to jobseekers.

3) In general, the transposing instrument sets strict conditions for the verification of entitlement,
allowing nevertheless the choice for the individual between the verifying documents.

4) Pursuant to article 14(1) of the Directive, residence right for more than three months is linked
to the condition of not becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member
State. However, the IGD in its current state entails that recourse to social allowance for three
months leads to consider the person as unreasonable burden, which seems to build in an
automatism in the system. Regular recourse to social allowance (that might ensure the
minimal income) might deprive the person from the residence right automatically.

5) One of the major issues of the transposition concerns the situation of family members, and
especially the non-Hungarian family members of Hungarian nationals. Just to mention some
of the numerous examples, in case of divorce or annulment of marriage, the ex-spouse of an
EEA national retains his/her residence right if fulfilling one of the conditions under Article
7(1)(a)-(c) – whereas the spouse of the Hungarian national will enjoy an unconditional
residence right in case he/she exercises parental custody. However major problems arise apart
from the positive discrimination of family members of Hungarians. The FMA is restrictive
and contrary to the Directive on several points. For instance, when it gives the definition of
‘household’, it requires one year cohabitation, or it allows the retention of residence right in
case of divorce or annulment of marriage for spouses only. A further problem is that it seems
that family members will keep their status as ‘family members’ and not on a personal basis.

6) There are a number of problems of conformity with regard to the registration procedure, such
as the recurring verification procedures at each renewal of the documents (including the case
when the application for permanent residence card on behalf of a family member who is a
third country national takes place once the previous residence document expired). Also, the
permanent residence card is called the same for family members and for EEA nationals. This
means that EEA nationals will have to renew their permanent residence card, submitting all
justifying documents each time of the renewal.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 6/69
Europa Institute
 7) Rules on expulsion are burdensome, and allow the expulsion of permanent residents, without
linking it to public policy considerations. If a person no longer fulfils the residence criteria,
the Office will declare, in the form of a decision, the termination of the residence right and as
a consequence, will order the person to leave the country within three months. However, if the
person does not do so, an expulsion order will be taken (accompanied by an entry and
residence ban lasting from one to five years, where the duration of the exclusion order shall be
defined in years) and in order to ensure the expulsion, this will be implemented by the police
under the form of deportation within 72 hours. The person might also be taken in deportation
custody. Application for the lifting of the exclusion order is not possible after three years as
prescribed by the Directive, however there are two exceptions that allow a temporary return.

8) The transposition of Articles 27-28 is incorrect because it does not include sufficient
guarantees that previous criminal conviction is not taken into account and that expulsion will
not serve a general preventive aim.

9) Judicial review and redress is in general very restricted in the FMA. Decisions of the Office
might be reviewed by a court, but appeal is not possible within the administration. An
objection may be raised if an expulsion order is taken. In this case, the objection can challenge
the method of the deportation (once the deportation is executed) or the deportation custody.
Pursuant to Article 31(2), there should be a possibility for interim measures and suspension of
the proceedings. However the FMA foresees the suspension only, when the enforcing judge
intervenes to check whether the principle of non-refoulement is satisfied if the person is
deported. The FMA remains ambiguous on the point, as to whether the court shall allow the
person to present his/her defence in person, or whether it is an option.

Finally, the conformity check found a number of gaps in the transposition. These most important are
the following:

- Rules on entry and exit visa (Articles 4(2), 5(1));

- Lack of guarantee that recourse to social assistance does not automatically lead to expulsion
(Article 14(3));
- More favourable treatment for jobseekers under Article 14(4) (a), (b));
- The non-application of rules on residence (Chapter III.) to permanent residence (Article
16(2).);
- Completion of administrative formalities or the exercise of residence right can not be
conditional upon possession of residence documents (Article 25);
- The expiry of the identity card does not affect the residence right (Article 15(2));
- The meaning of fraudulent practices (Article 35);
- Obligation of Hungarian authorities to cooperate with CA of other Member States and
obligation to reply within three months (Article 27(3)).

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 7/69
Europa Institute
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 8/69
Europa Institute
SUMMARY DATASHEET

1. Transposing legislation

Transposition is the result of the adoption of the Free movement Act (a szabad mozgás és tartózkodás
jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I. törvény) and of the
implementing Government Decree 113/2007 (V. 24.) (a szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával
rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I. törvény végrehajtásáról szóló
113/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet). One other Government Decree and two other Decrees of the
Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement were adopted with regard to the FMA and Act II of 2007 on
the entry and residence of third country. These Decrees are the following:

- A szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és

tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I. törvénnyel, valamint a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok
beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi II. törvénnyel összefüggő egyes
kormányrendeletek módosításáról szóló 115/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet
- A szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és
tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I. törvény, valamint a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok
beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi II. törvény végrehajtásáról szóló 25/2007. (V.
31.) IRM rendelet
- A szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek, valamint a harmadik
országbeli állampolgárok beutazásával és tartózkodásával kapcsolatos eljárások díjáról
28/2007. (V. 31.) IRM rendelet

The entry into force of the Decrees was aligned to that of the Act, thus the above legal instruments
took effect on 1st July 2007. Four other Government Decrees and an Act were adopted in order to
satisfy the equal treatment requirement set forth by Article 24 of the Directive as follows:

- egyes szakképzési és felnőttképzési tárgyú törvények módosításáról szóló 2006. évi CXIV.
- az Útravaló Ösztöndíjprogramról szóló 152/2005. (VIII. 2.) Korm. rendelet módosításáról
szóló 38/2007. (III. 7.) Korm. rendelet
- 387/2007. (XII. 23.) Korm. rendelet az egészségkárosodott személyek szociális járadékairól
- 339/2007. (XII. 15.) Korm. rendelet egyes szociális tárgyú kormányrendeletek módosításáról
- a lakáscélú állami támogatásokról szóló 12/2001. (I. 31.) Korm. rendelet

The above Decrees and Act modified around 60 other laws and regulations, mainly by broadening
their personal scope to persons benefiting from the right of free movement. The list of the modified
legislations can be found under Annex II. Legal texts are easily accessible for everyone from the portal
of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement,1 once the law applicable is identified. For this,
competent authorities usually provide the list on their web-site, and often legal texts are reproduced in
their entirety or with their relevant parts.

2. Assessment of the transposition

The following conformity issues exist for Hungary. They are organized pursuant to the type of
conformity issues and than presented in the order of the Articles of the Directive.

a) Incomplete transposition or non-transposition

Article 2(2)(b) Registered partnerships:

Registered partners are not covered by the transposition, since Hungary does not grant
the same legal status to registered partners as for spouses. Act CLXXXIV. of 2007
will enter into force on 1st January 2009 and will bring about a change in this

1
[Link]
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 9/69
Europa Institute
 situation.
Article 5(1) paragraph Right of entry:
1 With regard to joining or accompanying the primary holder of the residence right, the
FMA foresees that actual residence of the EEA national is needed before the family
member might join, whereas such presence is not prescribed if the family member
joins a Hungarian national. There is no transposition on the prohibition of imposing
entry visas.
Article 5(4) Granting every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents before
returning at the border:
Ambiguity on the range of possibilities that are offered for the persons concerned to
obtain the documents.
Article 7(4) Definition of student’s family members:
Pursuant to the transposition, family members include only spouses and dependent
children but it does not grant residence right to dependent direct relatives in the
ascending line of the student and of the spouse.
Article 8 (5) (f) Proof of the existence of a durable relationship with a Union citizen:
The quoted rules do not refer expressly to partners, but until the entry into force of
Act CLXXXIV of 2007 on registered partnership, partners might claim their rights on
the basis of these articles, as members of household.
Article 10 (1) Issue of residence cards:
The denomination of the residence card of a family member of a European citizen
does not appear as such in the transposing legislation. The fact that the competent
authority “shall rule” implies that a positive or a negative decision on whether to
grant or not the residence card.
Article 10(2) (f) Document proving the existence of a registered partnership for the issuing of the
residence card:
No transposition, since registered partnership is not yet recognised by Hungarian law.
Article 14(3) Recourse to social assistance might not lead to automatic expulsion:
See comment under 14.1. Recourse to social assistance for three months makes the
person an “unreasonable burden”, which entails the withdrawal of the residence right.
Article 14 (4) (a) No expulsion measures may be taken against Union citizens or their family members
if the Union citizens are workers or self-employed persons:
There is no guarantee in the transposing legislation that no expulsion measure can be
adopted against economically active persons.
Article 14(4) (b) Non ordering of expulsion measure with regard to jobseekers until proving the
genuine chances to find employment:
There is no transposition or indirect conformity to this regard.
Article 17(1) c) second Taking into account the periods of non employment not for the persons own making
and third paragraphs as periods of employment:
Such periods are not covered and thus are not taken into account as period spent in
employment. Furthermore, second subparagraph of Article 17.1. c) is not transposed
either.
Article 17(2) Non-application of the time-condition for workers and self-employed married to
Hungarian nationals:
Disregarding that family members of Hungarian nationals acquire the permanent
residence right after one year as a general rule, the spouse will acquire the permanent
residence right after two years of marriage and cohabitation.
Article 25(1) General provisions on residence documents:
No reference is made in the transposition, that the exercise of residence right and the
completion of administrative formalities may not be linked to the possession of a
residence document.
Article 27(2) Previous criminal convictions and general preventive aim:
None of the two is mentioned.
Article 27(3) Cooperation of the CA of the Members States:
Not mentioned.
Article 27(4) Readmission:
There is no reference to the readmission of those, whose nationality is in dispute.
Article 29(3) Free and non-systematic medical checks:
No corresponding guarantee. Administrative practice shows, that at first registration,
everyone needs to make a declaration on his/her health status.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 10/69
Europa Institute
Article 30 (1) Notification of decisions:
The national legislation does not guarantee that the “implications” of the expulsion
decision be communicated as well for the individual in question
Article 32(1) Application for lifting the exclusion order after three years:
Not mentioned.
Article 35. Abuse of rights, fraudulent practices:
If the person provided wrongful information to acquire the residence right, the
residence might be refused or lost, which might result in expulsion.
Article 37 More favourable national provisions:
There is no general rule laid down that the transposed provisions of the Directive do
not affect more favourable dispositions as laid down by other legal documents.

b) Incorrect or imprecise/ambiguous transposition

Article 2 (2) (b) Definition of family members:

Hungarian law does not yet recognise the registered partnership as being equivalent to
marriage, therefore there is no corresponding provision to that point, but this
conforms with the Directive since there is no harmonisation of Member States
legislation in that regard.
Article 2(2) d) Definition of ascendants:
There is a differential treatment for ascendants of Hungarian nationals (or of their
spouse), who do not need to be dependent (may ensure the conditions of living by
themselves); however ascendants of EEA nationals (or of their spouse) have to prove
dependency. In their case, only the EEA national might ensure the conditions of
living.
Article 3(2) (a) Definition of the household of the primary beneficiary:
There is a one year cohabitation requirement set forth by the FMA. A further
inconsistency is that, for EEA nationals and their family members, this needs to be
fulfilled in the country of provenance, whereas for family members of Hungarian
nationals, the whereabouts of the common residence are not specified. (i.e. it might be
spent fully abroad, partly abroad or fully in Hungary.)
Article 3(2) (b), Examination of personal circumstances if entry or residence is refused:
second paragraph For the entry to be allowed, the Police examine the travel documents and visas and
not the personal circumstances. If entry is denied, no appeal is possible. As regards
the refusal of residence, see comment under Article 30.
Article 4(1) Right to exit:
Right of exit is granted for those who reside legally in Hungary. The wording is
misleading; it implies that exit is not possible if the residence is illegal. This might
affect family members, who are third country nationals.
Article 5(2), last Right to entry:
paragraph - The transposition does not seem to assure “every facility to obtain the visa”, since
appeal is not possible if the application for visa is rejected, furthermore, in the
application procedure, the applicant shall bear the costs of interpretation, translation
and sign-interpretation.
- Ambiguity over the need for “accelerated procedure”, which is 72 hours if the
application is presented at a border crossing, otherwise 15 days if presented at the
consulate.
- Issuing the visa for family members who are third country nationals is not free of
charge. This would not present a problem if it was an internal situation, but the FMA
applies to all family members, regardless of their nationality, based on the
presumption that the Hungarian national is a previous migrant (see comment under
Article 2).
Article 6(2) Residence right up to three months for family members, who are third country
nationals:
The right of exercising the residence right is linked to “having entered legally”, which
is broader than the requirement of holding a valid passport.
Article 7(3) (a), (b) & Retention of the status of worker by those who suffer from temporary incapacity to
(c) work, due to accident or illness, involuntary unemployment:
The transposing legislation refers to the retention of the right of residence and not the

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 11/69
Europa Institute
 retention of the status of worker.
Article 7(3) (d) Retention of the status of worker in case of embarking on a vocational training:
The transposition requires a link between the vocational training and the previous
work, even if the person is involuntarily unemployed.
Article 8(2) Issuing the registration certificate and verification of the documents:
For the registration certificate to be issued applicants are asked to provide additional
documents and information and the registration certificate is issued immediately after
verification of these documents. Applicants are charged for the procedure a different
sum than Hungarians in a similar case. (renewal of their residence card)
Article 8(5) (c) Verification of entitlement for residence right for family members, who are union
citizens:
Family members (irrespective of their nationality) of Hungarian nationals can prove
their entitlement for residence by themselves, while family members of EEA
nationals (who wish to rely on Article 7.1.d) of the Directive) need to prove that the
EEA national satisfies the residence condition.
Article 8(5) (e) Proof of being member of the household:
A one year cohabitation requirement is imposed that shall be duly attested.
Article 9(3) Proportionality of sanctions:
The same fine can be imposed for failure to register than, for example, for falsifying
documents.
Article 10(2) (e) Documents verifying the fact of being a member of the household:
The transposition imposes a one year cohabitation requirement on family members of
EEA nationals, who are themselves third country nationals. However, the same
requirement is not imposed on third country national family members of Hungarian
nationals. Applicants shall, at the time of declaration fill in a form stating their health
status as well. Applications are charged 6 Euros, a different sum than what is imposed
on Hungarian nationals in a similar situation (registering their new address).
Article 11(2) Temporary absences not affecting the validity of the residence card:
There is ambiguity on the point if the person is considered to have “surrendered
his/her residence right”. This will be concluded by the Office if the person left the
territory without having deregistered. The destination of posting is not defined (third
country or another Member State).
Article 12(1) Retention of the residence right by family members, who are EU citizens in case of
death or departure of the EU citizen:
Family members can not retain their right under Article 7.1. d), but only pursuant to
points a)-c) of Article 7.1. of the Directive.
Article 12(2) Retention of the residence right on a personal basis:
paragraph 3 The FMA is ambiguous in its wording, since it refers to these family members as
retaining their right as “family members” if they satisfy the conditions under Article
7.1. a)-c) of the Directive.
Article 12(3) Residence right of children in case of death, departure of the EU citizen:
The retention of the residence right for the children in linked to the continuity of their
studies pursuant to a strict verification procedure at the beginning of each semester. It
is not clear what will be the sanction in such case: a fine for failure to register or the
termination of the residence right.
Residence right of the parent exercising parental custody in case of death, departure
of the EU citizen:
The residence right of the parent exercising custody is lost if the child reaches the age
of majority (18) or if the studies of the child are not continuous.
Article 13(1) Retention of the residence right for EU national family members in case of divorce,
annulment of marriage:
The transposition foresees the retention of the residence right only for the ex-spouse
(and not for family members) only if he/she fulfils conditions under Article 7(1) a)-c),
reference to point d) being excluded.
Article 13(2) (a) Retention of the residence right for third country national family members in case of
divorce, annulment of marriage:
The residence right is only retained by the ex-spouse. If the third country national
family member is the ex-spouse of an EEA national, than he/she needs to fulfil the
conditions under Article 7(1) a)-c). If the third country national family member is the
ex-spouse of a Hungarian national, than he/she will enjoy an unconditional residence
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 12/69
Europa Institute
 right if exercising the parental supervision of the common child.
Article 13(2) (c) Retention of the residence right for third country national family members in case of
having suffered domestic violence during the marriage:
This option is restricted by the FMA to the occurrence of “exceptional
circumstances”, such as intentional offences sentenced by a court.
Article 13(2) (d) last Retention of the residence right on a personal basis by third country national family
paragraph members in case of divorce or annulment of marriage, if the ex-spouse exercises the
right of parental supervision:
The transposition is ambiguous on that point; it seems that those family members will
retain their status as “family members”.
The Directive foresees the “acquisition of permanent residence right”, while the
transposition sets forth that “residence right continues to exist”. There is indirect
conformity, since, if the residence right continues to exist, it will lead to the
acquisition of permanent residence.
Article 14 (1) Residence right for more than three months linked to the condition of not becoming a
burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State:
Recourse to social allowance for three months leads one to consider the person as
unreasonable burden, which seems to build in an automatism in the system. Regular
recourse to social allowance (that might ensure the minimal income) might deprive
the person from the residence right automatically.
Article 14(2) Control of the fulfilment of residence criteria:
paragraph 2 EEA nationals and family members are checked for the fulfilment of material
conditions and procedural conditions as well (verification of reporting obligation) and
there is no guarantee in the transposing instruments that checks are not carried out
systematically.
Article 15 (1) Procedural safeguards:
The national legislation does not guarantee that the “implications” of the expulsion
decision be communicated as well for the individual in question.
Article 15(2) Expiry of the identity card or passport can not constitute grounds for expulsion: There
is no express guarantee that if the identity card or passport expired, the registration
certificate continues to be valid.
Article 15 (3) No ban on entry in case of an expulsion decision restricting free movement of Union
citizens and their family members on grounds other than public policy, public security
or public health:
If the identity document expired, this would entail the invalidity of the residence
document and if the person is thus expelled, an entry and residence ban from 1 to 5
years shall be imposed pursuant to the Hungarian legislation.
Article 16 (1) Right for permanent residence for Union citizens who have resided legally for a
continuous period of five years in a Member State:
The national legislation does not seem to guarantee that this right shall not be subject
to the conditions under Chapter III.
Article 16(2) Permanent residence right after five years of continuous legal residence:
Family members of Hungarian nationals, who are themselves third country nationals
acquire the permanent residence after one year of cohabitation, while third country
national family members acquire it after five years.
Article 16(4) Loss of permanent residence right due to a continuous absence of two years:
Permanent residence right is lost if an entry and residence ban is ordered pursuant to
the FMA.
Article 19 (1) Document verifying permanent residence right of EU citizens:
The document that verifies the permanent residence right of EEA nationals and their
family members is called the same, which results that same procedural rules apply
with regard to renewal (in every ten years) and verification to EU citizens as well.
Article 20(1) Document verifying the permanent residence right of family members, who are third
country nationals:
Permanent residence cards are not renewed automatically. There is verification of the
entitlement, the legality and the continuity of the residence at each renewal.
Article 20 (2) Failure to apply for a permanent residence card before the expiry of the previous
document for family members who are third country nationals:
In case the family member applies for the permanent residence card after the expiry
of the previous residence document, the FMA offers him the possibility to present
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 13/69
Europa Institute
 “valid excuses”. However, if he cannot provide valid excuses, he will be submitted to
the same verification procedure as announced under article 20 (1), which was flagged
as incorrect. Furthermore, the FMA does not define what “valid excuses” thus it could
lead to a quasi automatic verification of the entitlement.
Article 21 Continuity of residence:
The national legislation lays down the rule of the termination of the residence right if
an entry and residence ban is imposed upon the person, whereas according to the
Directive, such expulsion only affects the continuity of the residence and not the right
itself.
Article 25(2) Fees for issuing the residence documents:
The issuing of all residence documents is charged, and the sum is not aligned to the
charges applicable to Hungarians in a similar case (i.e. issuing an address card).
Article 26 Checks:
Transposition is ambiguous. Residence documents shall be carried together with the
identity document.
Article 27(1) Expulsion can not serve economic interests:
There is no express guarantee for that, furthermore it is possible that if the residence
right is no longer fulfilled (for example for becoming a burden for the social security
system) and if the person does not leave the country within three months, expulsion
order will be ordered based on grounds of public policy.
Article 28(2) No expulsion measure against permanent residents:
Expulsion and exclusion order is possible against EEA nationals and their family
members as well.
Article 29(1) Public health: conformity with the WHO list and diseases subject to protection
provisions under national law:
Contrary to the WHO list, Hungary treats HIV, TPHA and typhoid fever as being
infectious and contagious parasitic diseases and orders protection provisions for
Hungarian nationals as well. The interpretation of whether HIV qualifies for
infectious disease is in question.
Article 29(2) Health checks carried out within three months only:
Pursuant to the FMA, the person might be expelled if the disease occurs AND if the
person does not undergo the compulsory treatment. For the first criterion, the time-
frame is set in three months, but for the second (necessary treatment) there seems not
to be a time-limit.
Article 30(2) Notification of the decision:
The present wording of the FMA does not allow a full and precise understanding of
the grounds of expulsion.
Article 30(3) Time-frame for leaving the country:
If the residence right ceases, and it is concluded by the Office, the person needs to
leave the country within three months, however if the person fails to do so,
deportation is implemented within 72 hours. Entry and residence ban automatically
form part of the expulsion.
Article 31(1) Procedural safeguards:
The only redress possible against an expulsion order is objection against the method
of implementation of deportation and against deportation custody.
Article 31(2) Interim measures and suspension of the procedure:
Suspension is only possible if the person has been sentences by a court and the
enforcing judge intervenes to check the application of non-refoulement.
Article 31(3) Proportionality of the decisions:
See comment under 30.3.
Article 31(4) Re-entry for presenting the defence in person:
Ambiguous, whether the court needs (Article 46(2) of the FMA) or “if the court
should enable” the individual to do so (Article 45(2) of the FMA).
Article 32(1) Lifting of the exclusion order:
It is possible to apply for the lifting of the exclusion order after one year on serious
health grounds only.
Article 33(1) Expulsion as a penalty or legal consequence:
Inconformity is due to the fact that Article 27-29 are wrongly transposed, thus there is
no guarantee that temporary exclusion orders are based on a sufficiently serious
personal behaviour.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 14/69
Europa Institute
Article 33(2) Revision of the exclusion order if implemented after two years:
The national legislation refers to cases where the expulsion order has already been
executed two years ago, whereas the Directive intends to cover cases, where the
expulsion order was taken two years ago, and implementation comes after such
period.
Article 36 Proportionality of sanctions:
The same fine might be imposed if a person fails to register or is falsifies a document.
Expulsion is possible if a person did not leave the territory of Hungary within three
months, once his/her residence right ceased.

c) Minor instances of non-conformity

Article 7 (1) (a) Right of residence for more than three months for reasons of work:
The term “employed by the national legislation” does not differentiate between
workers and self-employed, but applies the category of being “engaged in a gainful
activity”, which covers both and does not seem to bring jobseekers under the scope of
article 7.1. (a).
Article 7(1) (c), second Residence right exceeding three months for reasons of studies:
indent Residence right is granted for the student if self-sufficiency is established at the time
of entry (and not during the residence, as set forth by the Directive).
Article 16(3) Temporary absences not affecting the continuity of the permanent residence right for
reason of posting:
The destination of posting is not defined (third country or another Member State).
Article 23 Related rights:
The right of family members, who are third country nationals to take up employment
in Hungary flows indirectly from the transposition.
Article 28(3) (a) Non-expulsion of EU citizens after ten years:
The FMA requires ‘more than ten’ years of residence.
Article 28(3) (b) Non-expulsion of EU citizens except for if it is in the best interest of the child:
The FMA uses the wording “interest of the child”.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 15/69
Europa Institute
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 16/69
Europa Institute
ABBREVIATIONS USED

ECJ European Court of Justice

TEC Treaty establishing the European Community

Article Article

CA Competent Authority

FMA Act I of 2007 on the entry and residence of persons having the right to move and reside
freely

IGD Government Decree 113/2007 (V. 24) on the implementation of the FMA

TAD Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement 28/2007 (V. 31.) on the
procedural tariffs of the procedures on the entry and residence of persons benefiting
from the free movement right and of third country nationals

Office Office of Immigration and Nationality

Cfr. conferatur

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 17/69
Europa Institute
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 18/69
Europa Institute
1 INTRODUCTION

This conformity study analyses in detail the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC on the free movement
of EU citizens in its consolidated version, and it compares it with the legislation in place in Hungary.

Directive 2004/38/EC repealed the earlier directives on free movement of persons (Directives
64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC,
90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC) as from 30 April 2006.

EU citizenship gives every Union citizen the right to move and to reside freely within the territory of
the Member States. The facilitation and promotion of this right, which is at the same time one of the
fundamental freedoms of the internal market, is the objective of Directive 2004/38/EC. A second
objective of Directive 2004/38/EC was to codify and review the various pieces of legislation and case-
law dealing with this issue.

Free movement as a fundamental freedom of the internal market

Free movement is one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market and can therefore only be
restricted in a limited number of pre-determined circumstances. Thus, national legislation cannot adopt
more restrictive legislation than provided for in the Directive.

Directive 2004/38/EC introduces, on the one hand, a uniform approach regarding the formalities that
Member States can impose upon EU citizens residing in their territory. These formalities are expressly
established in the Directive and restricted in function of the duration of the stay in the Member States.

• For a stay of less than three months, the only formality a Member State can impose is the
presentation of a valid passport or national identity card.

• For residence of more than three months, a Member State can only require the EU citizen to register
in the population register of the place of residence. This registration needs to be validated
immediately if a certain number of conditions are complied with. The Member State can only
require the EU citizen to present proof that he/she is a worker, self-employed person, student or has
sufficient resources not to become a burden upon the social security system of the Member State.
Member States cannot lay down a fixed amount of what they consider to be “sufficient resources”,
but must always take into account the personal situation of the person concerned. Family members
of the EU citizen will have to present an identity document and proof of the family link to an EU
citizen.

• After five years of continuous residence in a Member State, an EU citizen obtains a right to
permanent residence. The host Member State shall issue a document certifying permanent
residence. A permanent resident has the right to be treated equally to a national of the Member
State.

On the other hand, the Directive also determines and clarifies the only acceptable reasons for
restriction of the free movement of citizens by Member State authorities, namely for reasons of public
order, public security and public health. (For the interpretation and conditions of such exceptions, it is
important to rely upon the case-law of the Court of Justice.)

These measures guarantee a strong protection against expulsion for EU citizens who have been long-
term residents in another Member State. Such measures need to be proportionate and shall always look
at the personal conduct of the individual concerned which must represent a “genuine, present and
sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”. In addition, the
Directive establishes some procedural safeguards in case an expulsion decision is considered.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 19/69
Europa Institute
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN HUNGARY

Act XX. of 1949 (The Constitution of the Republic of Hungary) sets forth as a general, guiding
principle of the legal system, the rule of law and the respect of obligations assumed under international
law, which was reiterated and interpreted by the Constitutional Court in several emblematic
judgments. According to Article 19 of the Constitution, the supreme body of State power and popular
representation is the Parliament that passes legislation within the aforesaid sphere of authority.

The implementation of laws is ensured by the Government. To this regard the Government is vested
with the power to pass Decrees and to adopt Decisions, while members of the Government (the
Ministers) might enact Decrees. Decrees of the members of the Government must not be in conflict
either with laws or with Government Decrees, since their duties flow from the authorisation given to
them by the previously mentioned legal instruments. Act XI of 1987 on the adoption of laws
underlines the necessity of coherence of the system, when it sets forth the general rule implying that
legal instruments ranking lower in the hierarchy shall not be contrary to those ranking higher (e.g., a
Decree of a commune may not contain conflicting rules with a law, Government or ministerial
Decree).

The transposition of Community instruments is governed by Government Decree 1036/2004 (IV. 27)
and is precised by the Guidelines of the Minister of Justice 7001/2005 (IK 8.). Referring to legal
certainty and the rule of law, a decision from 1992 of the Constitutional Court (60/1992 (XI. 17))
requires that rules foreseeing obligations and conferring rights on citizens shall be laid down by
legally binding documents, where simple administrative practice or internal documents of
administrative bodies do not offer sufficient guarantees. The same principle applies to the
transposition of Community law as well. Points 184 and 187 of the Guidelines set forth that
transposing instruments may only be laws or decrees2 with general application throughout the country
and for example, Decrees of Communes would not offer adequate transposition of an EC Directive.

In its function to assure the implementation of laws, the Government annuls or amends all legally
irreconcilable resolutions or measures taken by any subordinate public authorities – with the exception
of laws, of course, the adoption of which is the prerogative of the Parliament (Article 35(4) of the
Constitution). To this regard, the Minister of Justice (currently called Minister of Justice and Law
enforcement) is responsible for ensuring the coherence of the legal order by carrying out continuous
compulsory control.

1.2 FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPOSITION & IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC

IN HUNGARY

As Hungary failed to transpose Directive 2004/38/EC on time, the formal conformity is ensured from
1st July 2007 onwards. The transposition was done in two ways:
- a number of already existing laws were modified due to the equal treatment requirement
(Article 24 of the Directive) and in reason of Article 40.1 of the Directive requiring express
mention of the conformity. (The modified legal instruments are listed in the ToC.)
- genuine legislation implied the adoption of one law (Act I. of 2007 on the entry and residence
of persons having the right to move and reside freely – FMA) and several Decrees, of which
the major ones are:
• Government Decrees 113 and 115/2007 that ensure the coherence of the legal
system by means of deregulation and by defining the competent authorities and the
details of implementation;
2
There might be an exception, where the Government might choose to issue a Decision, Precept or Bulletin if
the EC Directive contains rules with regard to national administrative bodies only, which does not have any
implication on natural and legal persons (i.e., does not confer rights on them, nor implies duties, nor interferes
with the exercise of their rights; but binds only authorities without wanting to ensure the right for natural and
legal persons to enforce the obligation incumbent upon the authority).
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 20/69
Europa Institute
 • Decrees 25, 26 and 28/2007 of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement that set
forth procedural rules related to obtaining residence documents; rules of deportation
and procedural tariffs of the procedures on the entry and residence of persons
benefiting from the free movement right and of third country nationals.

The above listed documents were adopted in response to the mandate laid down in Chapter VII. of the
FMA that empowered the Government, the Minister of Justice and Legal Enforcement in conjunction
with the Ministers of Fiscal and Foreign policy, and finally the Minister of Health to enact the
implementing rules of the Act.

The conformity of implementing pieces of legislation is checked first by the Minister of Justice and
Law enforcement that receives all draft Decrees from the Ministries; second, by the Government that
annuls or amends all legally irreconcilable resolutions or measures taken by any subordinate public
authorities according to Article 35(4) of the Constitution. The judicial control is ensured by courts that
may suspend proceedings if they come across conflicting legal instruments and refer the case to the
Constitutional Court. This ex post control, which is linked to a concrete, pending case is completed by
the abstract control that might by initiated by anyone regardless judicial procedures and time limits
before the Constitutional Court.

1.2.1 Distribution of competences according to the national Constitution and

the general description of organisation of national authorities
implementing Directive 2004/38/EC in HUNGARY

Government Decree 113/2007 specifies in its Article 2:

The administrative proceedings specified in the FMA shall be conducted by the following
authorities:

a) the minister in charge of immigration;

b) the minister in charge of foreign policies;
c) the Office of Immigration and Nationality (hereinafter referred to as "Office");
d) the local branches of the Office (hereinafter referred to as "regional directorate");
e) the consulate officer of Hungary authorized to issue visas (hereinafter referred to as
"consulate officer");
f) the Police.

The “Minister in charge of immigration” as defined in point a) above is the Minister of Justice and
Law enforcement. Act LV. of 2006 merged the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior into
one, meaning that with its entry into force (9th June 2006), judicial and immigration issues, and the
supervision of Police and Border Guards are now administered by one Ministry. The Minister passes
Decrees within the scope of the mandate received in Government Decrees and the law, implementing
Directive 2004/38/EC.

The Minister supervises the activity of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) that plays
(through its regional branches) a major role in the implementation of the FMA together with the
Border Guards/Police (see below). The OIN is an independent budgetary organisation that has a
central authority with seven regional directorates (RD). The OIN with national competence acts as the
central aliens policing authority and home registration activity. It keeps the central registry of aliens, it
takes a decision on visa if presented by a third country national family member falling under the scope
of relevant Community rules at the border crossing point, and it keeps contact with central authorities
of Schengen States. It also rules on appeals against decisions of the RD in certain cases.

Persons benefiting from the right of free movement pursuant to the FMA need to report their presence
at the RD. Applications for subsequent residence documents also take place here. The RD notifies
registrations to the central registry held by the OIN. The RD are responsible for ordering expulsion by
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 21/69
Europa Institute
Decision on the basis of a judgment in force and also rule (in the form of Decision) on a ban on entry
and residence or on deportation custody. It keeps the fingerprints and photographs, and it may retain or
give back travel documents if a criminal proceeding is pending against the person or he/she is
suffering penalty. Finally, the RD is competent to impose a penalty within one year against the
employer who fails to report the termination of an employment relationship.

The Police/Border Guard is the primary organisation to whom the individual crossing the border is
confronted when controlling the validity of the travel document; the police may issue a visa if
Community law requires it. Nevertheless, the visa is not issued without the prior decision
(authorization) of the OIN. In case the person is not entitled to enter the territory of Hungary, they
return the said person at the border. The Police are responsible for executing deportation orders and
takes decisions in case of an appeal against deportation. The Border Guards may impose a penalty on
the carrier3 of a third country national family member who fails to verify whether this person is in
possession of the necessary entry or transit document. Against this decision, an appeal might be
introduced to the OIN.

The consulate officer and the Minister of Foreign Affairs play a role primarily with regard to issuing
the visa. Furthermore, the request for leave to enter Hungary shall be presented to the consular officer
if the person is under an entry and residence ban, but would like to return in case that serious ground
necessitate the presence.

According to Article 6 of Government Decree 113/2007, the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall
adjudicate the visa applications of the family members of persons enjoying diplomatic immunity or
some other privilege under international law. The Minister shall notify the OIN of the fact that a
person is under entry and residence ban if Hungary has undertaken an international legal obligation to
enforce a prohibition of entry and residence with regard to that person, or if the Council of the
European Union has decided to enforce a prohibition of entry and residence with regard to someone
(Article 38(1) of the FMA).

The judicial control is ensured by courts, however the possibility of appeal is limited and is ruled out
in some cases (there shall be no right of appeal against judgments made in the first instance by a
competent authority in the second instance according to Article 72(2) of the FMA). The logic of the
system is explained in the ToC at the relevant parts.

Other institutions, such as the regional branches of the health and social security bodies or the Institute
for Pensions or the Employment Centres etc. do not have a direct role in the implementation of the
Directive Nevertheless, their proceedings and administrative practice need to be checked in order to
monitor conformity with the equal treatment requirement.

2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPOSING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVE

2004/38/EC

Transposition of Directive 2004/38 was primarily done by the Free Movement Act (a szabad mozgás
és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I.
törvény) and of the implementing Government Decree 113/2007 (V. 24.) (a szabad mozgás és
tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I. törvény
végrehajtásáról szóló 113/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet). The transposing measures entered into force
on 1st July 2007. Additional instruments carried out the necessary modifications of the existing laws in
order to bring the system in conformity with the requirements of the Directive.

3
According to Article 65 (1) of the FMA the carrier is: „The natural or legal person, or company without legal
personality, authorised for the transportation of persons for profit, and which transports a family member with the
nationality of a third country by air or water or on public highways with regular, scheduled services to the territory
of the Republic of Hungary or through it to another destination country”
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 22/69
Europa Institute
However, the main transposing instrument, the FMA, seems to have done the transposition in a way
that lacks conformity on numerous points. The following analysis will give an overview of the non=-
conformity issues following major focal points.

The first general remark regarding the logic of the FMA is that the scope of the Act covers EEA
nationals, their family members (regardless their nationality) and family members of Hungarian
nationals. A number of inconformity issues arise from this latter element, since non-Hungarian family
members of Hungarian nationals are covered in order to benefit from the free movement right and
residence. Pursuant to the case-law of the ECJ, fully internal situations do not benefit from the
application of Community law. Therefore, we must conclude that family members of Hungarian
nationals are covered due to the fact of having made use of their free movement right at a previous
moment. It seems that the FMA establishes the same presumption with regard to family members of
Hungarian nationals (i.e., that the Hungarian national is a migrant) and thus entitles them to benefit
from this Act. However, at a great number of occasions, the FMA differentiates in favour of family
members of Hungarian nationals, which could probably be excluded if these were considered as being
fully internal situations. In case of family reunification, the country of provenance of the beneficiaries
is defined in conformity with the Directive.

The second general remark concerns registered partnership. To date, registered partnership is not
introduced in Hungarian law. The relevant legislation (Act CLXXXIV of 2007) will enter into force
on 1st January 2009. Given the fact that there is no harmonisation at community level with regard to
this institution, the FMA is not incorrect not to transpose provisions related to registered partners.

The transposition of the Directive seems to be incorrect or incomplete with regard to a number of
points. The FMA adopts more restrictive measures as regards the entry of family members who are
third country nationals, since for their entry, it adopts a formal approach of conformity meaning that
only travel documents and visas are examined when crossing the border. If the person is subject to visa
requirement pursuant to community law, the application can be lodged at foreign missions, where the
consular officer deals with the application within 15 days (it should be noted, that the Directive
foresees an accelerated procedure, but not the FMA), or at border crossing points (the application is
dealt with within 72 hours). It remains unclear how the FMA transposes the requirement of “granting
every reasonable opportunity” (Article 5(2) of the Directive.) to obtain the necessary documents, when
for example the applicant shall bear the costs of interpretation and translation in the procedure.

The major inconsistency with regard to entry on the one hand is that family members of the
Hungarian nationals, who are themselves third country nationals shall pay 60 Euros for the visa –
which is contrary to Article 5(2) of the Directive if migrant Hungarians’ family members are covered
as well. On the other hand, third country national family members can exercise their residence right if
they entered the country legally. (The same problem persists for exit: third country national family
members can leave the country if they reside legally in Hungary. The term ‘legal residence’ is broader
than having the necessary documents cf. Article 4(1)).

As a general remark on the residence right, one shall note that EEA nationals and their family
members are subject to material and procedural control during their stay in Hungary (cfr. Article
14(2)). This means that they shall prove their entitlement (material) and they are submitted to
reporting obligations (procedural). Persons entitled to benefit from the residence right in Hungary are
subject to an extensive verification obligation. This applies to workers, self-employed, those who
suffer from a temporarily incapacity to work, family members etc. In all cases, entitlement is linked to
verification by a range of documents – offering a choice to the individual.

Jobseekers do not enjoy sufficient guarantee in the FMA as regards their residence right up to a
reasonable time until when they can prove a genuine chance to find employment. The concept of
becoming an ‘unreasonable burden’ is interpreted quite narrowly: persons who benefit from an elderly
allowance, a regular social allowance or care contribution for three months shall be considered as
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 23/69
Europa Institute
being an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system. A further element to understand this
concept: the periods of benefit are aggregated over a longer period. There is inconformity with regard
to actual job-seekers, who became involuntarily unemployed not of their own making. Article 17(1)(c)
would foresee that these periods count as period spent in employment, but the FMA does not.

As regards the situation of family members, the following problems were identified. First of all, the
definition of household is not conform to Article 3(2)(a) of the Directive, when it requires a one year
cohabitation for those who would like to claim that they are dependant, need personal care, live under
the same roof etc. with the primary beneficiary. On this point, it seems that the intention of the FMA is
to include (registered) partners in the scope of ‘family members’ and to ensure at the same time the
condition regarding the durability of the relationship.

As the primary beneficiary of the residence right, he/she can claim family reunification for his spouse
and their children. Contrary to Article 7(1) d), 7(2), 7(4), the FMA does not recognise the residence
right of dependants in the ascending line, neither for the student, nor for his/her spouse.

As regards the retention of the residence right, in case of death and departure of the Union citizen,
family members (who are themselves EEA nationals) can invoke Article 7(1) a) – c) to prove
entitlement, but not Article 7(1) d). Still with regard to death or departure of the Union citizen,
children will continue to benefit from the residence right if they continue to study without interruption.
The surviving spouse will also have the right of residence if he/she exercises the custody, however
only until the child reaches adulthood (18 in Hungary), or continues to study before that age.

In case of death or divorce, only the spouse retains the residence right, contrary to Article 13(1).
Spouses of Hungarian nationals enjoy an unconditional residence right if they exercise parental
custody over the child. For family members of EEA nationals, the condition to retain the residence
right is that he/she needs to satisfy one of the conditions under Article 7(1) a) – c), relying on point d)
is again, not possible. However, despite the fact that in both cases (death, departure / divorce,
annulment of marriage), the person relies on activities, independent from the late beneficiary, they
continue to retain their residence right as “family members”, thus not on a personal basis, as required
by Article 13(2) c).

Furthermore, the FMA differentiates between family members of a Hungarian national and between
that of an EEA national. The following discriminatory provisions were identified: This is
discrimination on the grounds of nationality, and of Article 37 of the Directive relating to more
favourable treatment.
- ascendants of the spouse of the Hungarian national or of the Hungarian national do not need to
be dependent, while ascendants of other beneficiaries need to rely upon the primary
beneficiary who will ensure sufficiency.
- as regards the one year cohabitation criterion, with regard to Hungarian couples, it is irrelevant
whether they spent this time entirely in Hungary, partly in Hungary or abroad, unlike for other
beneficiaries who need to prove the one year cohabitation in the country where they come
from.
- when a family member joins an EEA national, the FMA requires that joining is only possible
if the primary beneficiary actually resides in Hungary. With regard to family members of
Hungarian nationals, there is no such requirement.
- as regards the residence conditions: family members of Hungarian nationals may prove that
they themselves fulfil the residence conditions by being employed, self-employed, student etc.
Family members of an EEA national need to prove that the EEA national is entitled to reside
in Hungary, and in principle, they can not invoke for themselves that they satisfy the residence
condition based on economic activity or self-sufficiency. (This concerns primarily family
members who are themselves third country nationals.)
- there is positive discrimination with regard to family members of a Hungarian national, who
are themselves third country nationals, since they acquire permanent residence after one year
of cohabitation, while the same family members of EEA nationals do so only after five years.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 24/69
Europa Institute
 - the FMA disregards the possibility granted by Article 17(2) of the Directive that allows not to
impose a time-limit for the length of residence for spouses of Hungarian workers or self-
employed. To the contrary, the FMA foresees that the spouse acquires the right of permanent
residence after two years of cohabitation.

There is a serious problem of conformity with regard to the registration procedures and documents.
Registration certificates are issued after verification of all justifying documents, thus not immediately,
but immediately after verification. Residence cards for family members are issued after an extensive
verification of the entitlement and of the one year cohabitation requirement. The same verification is
carried out at each renewal of the residence card. Applicants shall make a declaration at the moment
they fill in the form about their health status, which leads us to the conclusion that health checks are
indeed carried out systematically, in violation of Article 29(3).

A very serious issue of conformity with the Directive is that the document certifying permanent
residence for EEA nationals and third country national family members bears the same name:
‘permanent residence card’. As a result, EU citizens need to renew their permanent residence card
(renewals are foreseen in every ten years) and verify their entitlement to residence.

Contrary to Article 28(2), permanent residence may end if an exclusion order is enforced. (Thus,
expulsion orders can be adopted with regard to permanent residents as well, unless they are resident in
Hungary for more than 10 years.)

As regards expulsion, the FMA does not guarantee in its wording that expulsion may not serve
economic ends. Indeed, it seems that expulsion can indirectly serve economic ends if we take into
account that a person who no longer fulfils the residence criteria, may be expelled in case if he/she
does not leave the country within the three months prescribed by the Office. The time-frame of three
months seems to conform to the requirement of Article 30(3), however it is questionable whether the
72 hours conform as well: this is the deadline to expel a person who did not comply with the decision
of the Office. An expulsion order can be taken against permanent residents (contrary to Article 28(2)
and there is no guarantee in the FMA that jobseekers, workers and self-employed will not be subject to
expulsion pursuant to Article 14(4).

A court may impose an expulsion as a legal consequence of a serious offence, together with a ban on
entry and residence that may only be temporary. As a general rule, entry and residence bans last from
one year to five years, while the duration of the ban shall be indicated in years. Further inconformity is
due to a lack of sufficient guarantees for revision of the order. There is no general rule as to when an
application for lifting the expulsion order could be lodged. There is a special rule that concerns
persons who suffered a dramatic change in their health status: they are allowed to ask for the revision
of the exclusion order after one year of its implementation. With this restrictive approach, the FMA
does not satisfy the requirement of Article 32(1) of the Directive. (Though there is one possibility for
the person concerned to return once in exceptional circumstances, for a maximum of three months. In
this case, the three months stay does not affect the validity of the exclusion order.)

Articles on public policy are generally wrongly transposed. The following elements are missing from
the definition of Article 33 of the FMA that transposes Articles 27 – 28 of the Directive:

- there is no reference to previous criminal convictions as facts not influencing the decision;
- reasons of general prevention are not excluded.

Re-admission of Hungarians seems to be correctly transposed at first sight. However, Article 27(4) of
the Directive also requires the readmission of those persons whose nationality is in dispute. The
current wording of the Constitution (Article 69 (2)) does not foresee that case.

Further inconsistencies with regard to Articles on public policy:

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 25/69
Europa Institute
 - the notification of the decisions does not seem to offer full and precise information on the
implications of the decision (Article 30(2))
- there is no provision on the revision of the exclusion order if it is implemented two years after
it was issued (Article 33(2)) which is certainly due to the fact that expulsions are executed
very quickly, under the form of deportation (72 hours or max. 30 days if the deportation
custody is prolonged by a court).

Judicial review and redress are in general very restricted in the FMA. Decisions of the Office
might be reviewed by a court, but appeal is not possible within the administration. An objection may
be raised if an expulsion order is taken. In this case, the objection can challenge the method of the
deportation (once the deportation is executed) or the deportation custody. Pursuant to Article 31(2),
there should be a possibility for interim measures and suspension of the proceedings. However, the
FMA foresees the suspension only in case, when the enforcing judge intervenes to check whether the
principle of non-refoulement is satisfied if the person is deported. The FMA remains ambiguous on the
point, as to whether the court shall allow the person to present his/her defence in person, or whether it
is an option.

Finally, the conformity check found a number of gaps in the transposition (i.e. transposition is missing
as such). These are the following:

- Hungarian law does not yet recognize the registered partnership as being equivalent to
marriage (Article 2 (2) b));
- Recourse to social assistance might lead to expulsion (Article 14 (3));
- No guarantee in the transposing legislation that no expulsion measure can be adopted against
economically active persons (Article 14 (4) (a));
- More favourable treatment for jobseekers under Article 14(4) (b);
- Periods of employment (Article 17 (1) c) second paragraph);
- Worker or the self-employed are to acquire the permanent residence right without time
condition in case of being married to a Hungarian (Article 17 (2));
- Obligation of Hungarian authorities to cooperate with CA of other Member States and
obligation to reply within three months (Article 27(3));
- Rules on publicity (Article 34).

2.1 Definitions, family members and beneficiaries

Definitions: the concept of “family members”(Article 2)

The definition of family members has been transposed by point b) of Article 2 of the FMA, generally
correctly, and includes more favourable treatment to family members of sedentary Hungarians.

Beneficiaries of the residence right (thus family members as well) are described by the FMA as
following a double approach, which means that the law sets forth at each Article two distinct
categories: EEA nationals (with the exception of Hungarian nationals) and their family members, and
family members of Hungarian nationals. This presentation is burdensome for two reasons.

Firstly, the Directive is supposed to cover cross-border situations, which is satisfied in case of EEA
nationals as primary beneficiaries, and their family members if they reside in Hungary. However, the
legislation does not meet the Directive’s requirements with regard to family members of a Hungarian
national, who are themselves third country nationals, since the exercise of free movement right by the
Hungarian national is not a precondition in this case. This leads us to the conclusion that the FMA is
drafted in a way that also applies to sedentary Hungarians if they wish to rely on family reunification
right. However, the case-law of the ECJ rejects the application of community law to purely internal
situations.4

4
See case: Uecker and Jacket. Joined cases C-64/96 and C-65/96.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 26/69
Europa Institute
Secondly, this double wording allows the legislator to include slightly more favourable provisions
regarding family members of Hungarian nationals than those of EEA nationals.

The transposing legislation in its Article 2(2) reflects this ambiguity and incorrectness:

With regard to “spouses” (Article 2(2)(a)), points ba) and bb) of Article 2 of the FMA enables “the
spouse of a Hungarian national” to benefit from the application of the Directive, without excluding the
spouses of sedentary Hungarians from this right, leading to a reverse, positive discrimination for
(possible) fully internal situation as well.

With regard to ascendants in direct line (Article 2(2)(d), the transposing Article (points bf) and be) of
Article 2 of the FMA) differentiates between ascendants of Hungarian nationals (and their spouses),
where there is no condition of being dependent from the primary holder of the residence right, and
ascendants of EEA nationals. Ascendants of EEA nationals (and their spouses) need to prove that they
are dependant, meaning that the ascendant of a Hungarian national will be treated in a more favourable
way than the ascendant of an EEA national or of his/her spouse, when registering with the competent
authority. This is due to the fact that the family member of a Hungarian national (cfr. Article 7(2) of
the FMA) might ensure his living (and even the living of the Hungarian national) by himself, whereas
this reverse situation is not possible for family members of EEA nationals, for whom the EEA national
needs to bring a proof of being able to ensure their living conditions.

• Spouses

To date, the Constitution of Hungary recognises marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Same
sex couples are allowed to enter into partnership, which creates a similar legal situation to a marriage.
However, entering into registered partnership will only be possible after 1st January 2009.

• Registered partners

There is no corresponding provision in the FMA with regard to registered partners yet, since at the
moment, registered partnership is not recognised by Hungarian law. Since there is no harmonisation of
the laws of the Member States in this field, this does not lead to inconformity. To date, Article 685/A
of the Civil Code sets forth the rules of “partnership”, which entails less rights for the partners than if
they were married.

Act CLXXXIV of 2007 that will enter into force on 1st January 2009, will introduce into Hungarian
legal system the notion of “registered partnership”. Registered partnerships will be possible for two,
major (above 18) persons (homo- or heterosexual couples) who contract in person in presence of the
registrar.

• Host Member State

Last, but not least, there is indirect conformity with Article 2(3) in the FMA, since the notion of “host
Member State” is not defined expressis verbis, but the Act refers to the territory of the Republic of
Hungary, thus it avoids ambiguity.

Beneficiaries and facilitation of entry and residence (Article 3)

Article 3 of the Directive has been transposed by Articles 1(1), 3(3), 8(1), 36(1), 36(3) of the FMA and
by point d) of Article 1, and Article 3 of the IGD incompletely.

Article 3 deals with the beneficiaries of the Directive and also imposes an obligation on the Member
States to facilitate entry for a secondary class of beneficiaries (essentially, members of the extended
family). The FMA broadens the scope of application of the Directive to EEA nationals and their
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 27/69
Europa Institute
family members and not only EU citizens and family members. Pursuant to the “dual approach”,
adopted by the Hungarian legislator, family members of Hungarian citizens are listed separately
(parallel) to EEA nationals. This results in the above-mentioned more favourable treatment of
Hungarian nationals.

• The approach for Article 3(1)

The FMA defines the beneficiaries in four categories, namely

- EEA nationals
- family members of the EEA national (without specifying their country of origin)
- family members of Hungarian nationals (who are not themselves Hungarian, thus, EEA and
third country nationals as well are covered)
- the dependants of the EEA and Hungarian nationals, of whom the EEA and Hungarian nationals
take care of for serious health reasons and those who were member of their household for at
least one year. (on this point see Article 3.2.)
In the case of family members, the FMA mentions the fact of joining or accompanying the EEA and
Hungarian nationals.
The whereabouts of the prior common residence are not prescribed, therefore the country where the
family comes from might be from within the EU or outside the EU.

• Other family members and facilitation (Article 3(2))

o Personal scope

The first conformity problem arises with regard Article 3(2)(a): the Directive allows those who form
part of the household of the primary beneficiary to join him/her in the host country, whereas
Hungarian law restricts this right to those who have lived in the same household for at least one year.
Setting such a time-frame is contrary to the general spirit of the Directive.

The FMA seems to mix up two notions: on the one hand, the fact of being a member of the household
and on the other hand, the existence of a “durable relationship” as sets forth by Article 3(2)(b) of the
Directive – whereas the one year seem to serve the purpose to verify the durability of the relationship.
This might also result from the legislator’s intention to bring partners under the scope of application of
the FMA, given the fact that registered partnership is not yet recognised under Hungarian law.
However, the insertion of the one year cohabitation for Article 3(2)(a) is a restrictive approach to the
exercise of the right to free movement.

There is a second issue arising jointly with the one year cohabitation condition, namely that there is
positive discrimination as regards Hungarian nationals and their family members, in the broader term.
EEA nationals must satisfy the condition of one year cohabitation in the country from which they
arrive. This is burdensome for those persons, who would complete their one year cohabitation partly in
Hungary, for those live under the same roof only in Hungary and also for those, who join the EEA
national in Hungary at a later stage, so where there is no immediate continuity of cohabitation.
Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the FMA, a document issued in the previous country of residence needs to
state the fact of cohabitation.

Family members of Hungarian nationals (without reference to the previous exercise of free movement
right by the primary beneficiary, i.e. the Hungarian) do not face such burdens. Though the FMA sets
forth the one year requirement of cohabitation, this might be completed fully abroad, partly abroad, or
entirely in Hungary.5 In all cases, the beneficiary needs to bring a proof of the cohabitation.

With regard to Article 3(2)(b): registered partners are not recognised as such by Hungarian law until
1st January 2009. Nevertheless they enter under point a) of Article 8(1) of the FMA, as members of the

5
This latter element underlines the interpretation, that sedentary Hungarians are also covered by the Directive.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 28/69
Europa Institute
household, since the current notion of household (Article 1 d) of the IGD) covers durable
relationships, including partnerships as well.

o Facilitation

In general, Hungarian law does not facilitate the entry of persons qualifying for the status of family
members, since it imposes a requirement of one year cohabitation prior to arrival to Hungary and this,
with regard to Article 3(2) a) and b) as well.

o Examination of personal circumstances:

There is a non-conformity case with the last indent of Article 3 of the Directive, given that the IGD
sets as a rule, the verification of travel documents and visas (and not that of personal circumstances) –
in the absence of which, the person might not enter the territory of Hungary and appeal is excluded
against such decisions. Such provisions run counter to the general spirit of the Directive and especially
the second indent of Article 5(2) of the Directive.

2.2 Rights of exit and entry

Right of exit (Article 4)

Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive have been transposed by Articles 3, 20(6), 32(2), 36(4), 73(1) of the
FMA, Articles 7-11, 13-14, 17-18 of the IGD and point 1.4. of the annex II. of the TAD generally
incompletely.

Article 4 (1) provides a general right for Union citizens and family members, provided they have the
required identity card or passport, to leave the territory of a Member State. The Hungarian
Constitution and Act XII of 1998 both declare the right to leave the country – even if this is exercised
with an intention to settle abroad. This is a clause that has a certain historic explanation, because
during communism, those who emigrated faced the loss of Hungarian citizenship.

The Act covers Hungarian nationals and all those non-nationals (including EEA nationals), who reside
in the country legally. If so, they might leave the country in possession of a valid identity card (EU
citizens) or passport. Passports are issued with a validity of five or ten years, in conformity with
Article 4(4) of the Directive.

The ambiguity that is hidden in this phrasing lies in the concept of “legally residing”. This does not
apply to Hungarians, nor to EEA nationals, since they, by virtue of Article 18(1) of the TEC, benefit
from the right to free movement and residence on the territory of other Member States. After three
months residence and if becoming a burden, the EEA national might be expelled from the country –
without his/her residence becoming illegal. Thus exit is possible in possession of the necessary
documents. However, there is no sufficient guarantee as regards the exit of third country national
family members whose residence is considered “illegal” in Hungary.

Article 4(2) of the Directive which does not require exit visas, has not been transposed by the FMA.
There is no corresponding measure which lays down that no exit visa might be asked for from EU
citizens and their family members, however the direct applicability of the Schengen border code fills
in this gap. Therefore, conformity should flow from the relevant Regulations.

Right of entry (Article 5)

There are several conformity issues with the transposition of Article 5 of the Directive, since, again,
family members of Hungarian nationals are discriminated against (both in positive and negative
terms). The FMA and IGD lack guarantees for a facilitated procedure for family members to be
granted the right of entry.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 29/69
Europa Institute
• Article 5(1)- general right of entry

Article 5(1) of the Directive makes the right of entry of family members, who are not nationals of a
Member State, conditional only upon the possession of a valid passport, unlike the FMA, which sets
forth that family members, joining or accompanying the primary holder of the residence right, might
enter the territory of Hungary. The Directive requires at this point only the possession of a valid
passport from family members – referring to the cases of not the first, but all subsequent entries as
well. The FMA seems to link the entry right (not only the first entry) to joining or accompanying the
primary beneficiary. This does not conform to the Directive. Following from the dual logic of
entitlement that characterises the FMA, the Act speaks separately about family members of EEA and
Hungarian nationals and imposes an additional requirement to this situation. It requires that the third
country national family member of an EEA national joins the EEA national actually residing on the
territory of Hungary, which is not imposed on family members of Hungarian nationals, whose
presence is not a precondition for entry in Hungary.

The corresponding Article of the FMA (Article 3(2) sets forth the possession of a visa, unless
otherwise provided by directly applicable, binding community law, thus by virtue of the supremacy of
community law, there is no collision between the applicable rules.

There is no corresponding measure to Article 5(1) second subparagraph. However conformity could be
deduced a contrario from Article 3(1) of the FMA which requires EEA nationals to have a valid
passport or identity card if they wish to enter the country. Nevertheless, there is no provision
guaranteeing the non-imposition of entry-visa or equivalent formalities.

• Third country family members (Article 5(2))

Article 3(4) of the FMA is in line with the second part of Article 5 (2) of the Directive, where the
FMA states that third country national family members “may enter the territory without a visa”. The
FMA links the condition of entering the territory of Hungary without a visa to having a “document
proving the right of residence under this Act”. This is a reference to Articles 22 (1) and 24 (1) of the
FMA, which lay down the rules for documents for stays exceeding three months (residence card) and
the documents verifying a permanent residence right (permanent residence card). Here, the FMA
intends to establish conformity with the second part of article 5 (2) of the Directive.

However, there are three major transposing issues regarding Article 5(2) second subparagraph. First
and foremost, the transposing instruments leave doubt about the interpretation of “Member States shall
grant such persons every facility to obtain the necessary visas” regarding the following elements:

- Article 20(6) of the FMA excludes the right of appeal in case the visa application is
rejected;
- According to Article 73(1) of the FMA, when applying for a visa, the translation,
interpretation or sign-language interpretation shall be born by the applicant.

Second, there is no mention of an accelerated procedure with regard to visa applications and the IGD
is ambiguous about the length of administration procedure. Pursuant to the IGD (Articles 7 and 11), if
the application for visa is made at road, water and air border crossing, the query shall be dealt with
within three hours, however, if the query is presented at foreign missions, this shall be dealt with
within 15 days. The Commission shall assess whether 15 days qualify for ‘accelerated procedure’.

The third concern is linked to the requirement under the Directive that visas shall be issued free of
charge. Pursuant to point 1.4 of Annex II of the TAD, family members of Hungarian nationals, who
are themselves third country nationals need to pay 60 Euros, when applying for the entry visa. This
could qualify as a purely internal situation. However, the general wording and application of the FMA
covers family members of Hungarian nationals in general, regardless whether the primary holder of
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 30/69
Europa Institute
the residence right (the Hungarian national) exercised his/her right to free movement of not. In the
absence of such differentiation, third country national family members of migrant Hungarian nationals
are discriminated against family members of migrant EEA nationals. This possibility for this positive
discrimination does not flow from the spirit of the Directive and community law in general.

• Entry/exit stamp (Article 5(3))

There is conformity with the Directive, since the Hungarian legislation refers in its Article 5(3) to
Regulation 562/2006, which does not need to be transposed separately, since it has direct effect.

• Article 5(4): lack of the necessary documents

The transposing provision (Article 36(4) of FMA) is ambiguous on the term “every reasonable
opportunity to obtain the necessary documents”. Firstly, Article 36(4) of the FMA grants 72 hours for
the person whose right of entry was denied at the border to obtain the necessary documents. It is thus
possible to obtain the said documents by returning, asking someone to bring them etc., such as the
person might verify his/her residence right in any other acceptable way (Article 32(2) of the FMA).
However, the provision does not grant the person “every reasonable way”. As long as such a loose
wording in the FMA remains, the border control might refuse the entry of the person based on the
margin of appreciation.

• Reporting presence in the country (Article 5(5))

Hungary did not make use of the option under Article 5(5). Therefore, there is no obligation to report
the presence after having entered the country.

2.3 Right of residence

2.3.1 Right of residence for up to three months (Article 6)

Article 6 of the Directive has been transposed by Article 5 of the FMA, generally well, but leaving
room for ambiguity.

Article 6 grants an initial right of residence for up to three months. This right needs to be read in
conjunction with Article 14(1) – as did the Hungarian legislator, when it transposed the two Articles
together, including the reference to “not becoming an unreasonable burden for the host Member State”
in the same Article 5 of the FMA that deals with the residence right up to three months. Comments
regarding the current regulation of “becoming an unreasonable” burden will be made under Article
14(1) of the Directive.

The main difference in the wording of the transposing provision (Article 5 of the FMA) is that it does
not refer (according to the spirit of Article 5) to the residence right up to three months as enabling
European citizens to exercise such right “without any other conditions or any formalities than the
requirement of holding a valid identity card or passport”. Rather, the provision makes it conditional on
not becoming a burden on the social assistance system of Hungary. So the right of residence for up to
three months exists, provided that they do not become an unreasonable burden.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the FMA, EEA nationals benefit from the right of residence if they are in
possession of a valid passport or identity card, while for family members, who are third country
nationals, the condition of exercising such right is linked to “having entered legally”. Article 3(2) of
the FMA sets forth the rules of legal entry that are linked to accompanying or joining the primary
holder of the residence right. However, as explained under Article 5(1) of the Directive, difference is
made between third country national family members of Hungarian and of EEA nationals, to the
detriment of the latter. The condition of joining the EEA national is met only if the EEA national

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 31/69
Europa Institute
resides in Hungary, whereas such condition is not linked to joining a Hungarian national. Family
reunification in principle (especially in case of spouses, see the Diatta case6) should be possible as well
if the EEA national is temporarily abroad, but returns before the expiry of the three months period.

Job-seekers need to register their presence on the 93rd day at the latest, proving their genuine chances
for finding an employment. In case they can not, it is ambiguous whether the Office for Immigration
and Nationality will grant them the residence right up to six months – since there is no express
provision as to their prolonged residence right.

2.3.2 Right of residence for more than 3 months (Article 7-13)

(a) Conditions under Article 7

Generally speaking, Article 7 has been correctly transposed, with the exception of students, whose
family members are defined more narrowly than allowed by the Directive and involuntarily
unemployed persons, who enrol to vocational training, whose legal situation does not reflect the
retention of the status of worker.

Article 7 of the Directive has been transposed by Articles 6(1)-(3), 9(1)-(2), 28(2) b) and 28(3) of the
FMA, and Articles 21(3) and 22 of the IGD generally well, with the exception of Articles 7(3) d) and
7(4).

• The three situations (Article 7(1)) :

- Workers and self-employed

The term employed by Article 6(1) of the FMA does not differentiate between workers and self-
employed, but applies the category of being “engaged in a gainful activity”, which covers both.
The wording of the FMA is rather ambiguous here, as it does not seem to bring jobseekers under the
scope of Article 7.1. a). The FMA says the purpose needs to be the carrying out of gainful
employment, which might be interpreted as covering already economically active beneficiaries, or to
the contrary, covering those who will, at a later stage pursue an economic activity.

- Non economically active

Non-economically active persons are covered by Article 6(1) b) of the FMA, if they have sufficient
resources (on the interpretation of sufficient resources, see comment under Article 8(4)). In this case,
the person will be entitled to health care services if he/she pays the contribution in Hungary (after the
work accomplished in the country), or to be covered by other means.

- Students

Article 7.1. c) second indent becomes ambiguous as transposed by Hungarian law. The Directive
grants the residence right if self-sufficiency is declared by the student. However, the FMA grants the
residence right only if this condition is met at the time of entry. This might lead to different
administrative practice and interpretation, since the provisions seem to guarantee the residence right at
the time of entry, but do not say so for the duration of the studies. Yet formally, the CA cannot verify
the sufficiency of means of subsistence pursuant to the IGD.

Hungarian legislation is more favourable for Articles 7(1)(c) and (d). The FMA applies a higher
threshold by stating that only those who become an unreasonable burden might not retain their
residence right. However, this wording does not have that much consequence, since in any case, the

6
Aissatou Diatta v Land Berlin. Case 267/83.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 32/69
Europa Institute
CA will retain a margin of appreciation (after having verified the objective elements set forth by
Article 21(1)-(2) of the IGD).

• Family members (Article 7(1)(d), 7(2) and 7(4))

Articles 7(1) d); 7(2) and 7(4) deal with the residence right of students’ family members. Article 8 of
the FMA sets forth as a general rule, that the CA might authorise the residence of persons, who were
dependent of the primary beneficiary of residence, were member of the household for one year prior to
arrival to Hungary (in case of EEA nationals, with regard to Hungarian nationals, the one year
condition also applies, but the whereabouts of such common residence is not specified), or need the
personal care of the primary entitled due to health reasons. However, Article 6(3) of the FMA applies
specifically to students, whereas the Act systematically narrows the scope of family members,
including spouses and dependent children only. Registered partners are not included, given the fact
that the relevant law will enter into force only on 1st January 2009 and there is no harmonisation to that
regard at community level.

Based on the principle of lex specialis derogate lex generalis, dependant direct relatives in the
ascending line of primary beneficiary are not covered. Furthermore direct dependant relatives in the
ascending line of the spouse are not covered either.

• Retention of the status of worker (Article 7(3))

The transposing legislation is incorrect, as the wording of the FMA, such as the IGD, refers to the
retention of the right of residence and not the retention of the status of worker, as it is put forward by
article 7(3) a). It is more favourable as regards Article (7) c), where the FMA does not set as a
condition in order to retain the status of worker to be “involuntarily” unemployed, the nature of
unemployment being indifferent. Furthermore, pursuant to Act IV of 1991 on employment, the
required period of one year employment is deemed to be satisfied if the person concerned had been
employed for 365 days during the preceding four years.

Article 7(3) a) does not foresee the verification of the status of being temporarily unable to work as a
result of a work accident or illness, however the IGD sets forth the criteria to do so by submitting a
diagnosis provided by a body of medical experts concerning the loss of capacity to work, or a
document supported by the assessment of a body of medical experts providing guidance to determine
the degree of incapacity. Such verification is in line with the general system of verification of
entitlement to benefits in Hungary and seems not to be outlawed by the Directive either.

Article 7(3) d) is definitely incorrectly transposed by the FMA. The said Article enables those persons
who embark on a vocational training to retain their status of worker if there is a link between the
previous employment and the vocational training. This is so as well in Article 9(1) c) of the FMA, the
only difference is that this Article does not differentiate between unemployed and involuntarily
unemployed. The purpose of the Directive, i.e. to protect those who became involuntarily unemployed
by offering them a greater liberty to choose is not achieved in Hungarian law, since according to the
present wording of the FMA, the involuntarily unemployed could not chose a vocational training
different from their previous employment

(b) Administrative formalities for Union citizens (Article 8)

Article 8 has been transposed by Article 21(1) – (3) of the FMA and Articles 20-21, 24, 26-27 and 37
of the IGD. The transposition of Article 8 suffers from important inconsistencies with the Directive
that will be summarised in this section although the documents requested to prove the right of
residence seem to be in line with the Directive

• General obligation to register and deadlines (Article 8(1) and (2))

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 33/69
Europa Institute
Hungarian law has imposed the obligation to register if the Union citizen wants to stay for more than 3
months in Hungary. The obligation, set forth in Article 21 of FMA, also applies to job-seekers, which
is against the spirit of the Directive.

The deadline for registration under Article 21(1) of the FMA is 93 days, which conforms with the
requirements of the Directive. Article 8(2) of the Directive also requires registration certificates to be
issued immediately upon registration. Article 21(2) of the FMA guarantees the immediate issuing of
the certificate. However, it is immediate only after the verification of the documents that are submitted
to the authority. Furthermore, the Office of Immigration and Nationality charges applicants 1000 HUF
(around 4 EUR) for the issuing of the registration certificate.

The registration certificate attests the fact and the date of registration and will be issued once the
Office verified the conditions set forth by the FMA, i.e., the sufficiency of resources, the existence of
health insurance, being enrolled at an educational establishment.

• Documents requested to proof the right of residence

The most important conformity issue here is that the authorities request information that is not listed in
Article 8(3).

The procedure for issuing a registration certificate shall be initiated at the Regional Office for
Immigration and Nationality, which is competent with regard to the future residence. The person
concerned shall fill in a registration form that will be handed in to the Office together with all
justifying documents of the entitlement of residence right and a sum of 1000 HUF (that roughly equals
4 EUR) in the form of duty-stamps.

The documents to prove that the Union citizen meets the conditions of the Directive are listed in
various Articles of the IGD, which states that the entitlement can be proved “especially by the
following documents”, thus the lists are not exhaustive. This is in line with the spirit of the Directive
which allows citizens the choice of the means of proof. The documents that can be submitted to proof
employment are:

• Employed persons can prove that they are workers by a document stating the commencement of
an employment relationship, while self-employed might bring different documents which are:

a) a valid contract or official copy of company records, certificate of incorporation or

company certificate to verify that the applicant is engaged in any gainful activity in the
capacity of being the owner or director of a business association, cooperative or some
other legal entity formed to engage in gainful employment, or is a member of the
executive, representative or supervisory board of such entity;
b) a valid private entrepreneur's license or similar authorisation - issued by the competent
authority of another Member State - to engage in business activities.

• Students may prove their entitlement to the residence right with:

a) a certificate of admission from an educational institution governed by the act on public

education or the act on higher education;
b) a document to verify his/her student status; or
c) any other verifiable means.

Apart from this, authorities may only ask for a declaration on the existence of sufficient means at the
time of entry. No further investigation of the economic status of the student is foreseen.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 34/69
Europa Institute
• Non-economically active persons, may prove the existence of sufficient resources by presenting an
assets certificate, a certificate stating their dependant status, an extract of the bank account or bank
guarantee or an insurance.

On the form mentioned above, the person needs to state if he/she suffers from a disease endangering
pubic health or if he/she undergoes a treatment with regard to such disease. Proof needs to be brought
of health insurance (in case of workers, a certificate of earnings), sufficient means of subsistence and a
valid identity document.

Article 8(3) of the Directive establishes a closed list of the document that might be asked for by the
competent authority, on which neither the health status of the person, nor the payment of a certain sum
(as an administrative fee) figures. For the additional requirement regarding the health status,
Hungarian law does not seem to conform to the requirements of community law.

• The interpretation of “sufficient resources” (Article 8(4))

The interpretation of “sufficient resources” is in conformity with the requirements of the Directive.
Nevertheless, it leaves a margin of appreciation for the Office of Immigration and Nationality.

The general rule laid down by Article 21 of the IGD is that the Office will take into account the per
capita earnings of the household. No other minimum threshold is set, but the one put forward by the
Directive, i.e., the minimum old-age social security pension. In case the per capita earnings do not
reach this threshold, the Office might examine on a case-by-case basis other assets, such as:

- whether the applicant is the owner, beneficial owner or user of the real estate property
in which they reside;
- payments from the social security or social assistance system of any EEA Member
State;
- income from funds or benefit plans financed by payment of membership dues or other
regular contributions;
- income from a deposit account or contract registered in any EEA Member State or any
other bank or investment asset, a bank guarantee provided by a credit institution
established in any EEA Member State or that is guaranteed by a legal person
established in any EEA Member State;
- income from maintenance or alimony supported by documentary evidence.

Nevertheless, when evaluating the assets, goods of everyday use, household equipment, accessories;
any property serving as the residence of the EEA national and his dependant family members, the
vehicle of handicapped persons and any assets which are required for the EEA national’s gainful
activity, cannot be taken into account. No evidence could be gathered on the margin of appreciation of
the Office to this regard.

• Family members (Article 8(5))

As regards family members, family members (regardless their origin) of Hungarian nationals are
positively discriminated compared to family members of EEA nationals and a one year cohabitation is
imposed on those who would like to claim family reunification, based on Article 3(2) a of the
Directive.

The IGD in its Articles 24, 26, 27 and 37 does not differentiate between family members regarding
their nationality, thus imposing the same conditions when it comes to prove the family relationship.
Furthermore, the FMA does not differentiate with regard to the status of EEA nationals (worker, self-
employed, family member or other), which in a way makes the law more understandable and easier to
read.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 35/69
Europa Institute
• Valid identity card or passport (Article 8(5)(a) and Article 10(2)(a)

A valid identity card or passport is required from family members of the primary beneficiary.

• Document attesting family relationship/registered partnership (Article 8(5)(b) and Article

10(2)(b))

Article 24(1) of the IGD gives an open list of documents with which the family member may prove the
existence of a family relationship. These are the followings:
a) birth certificate;
b) marriage certificate;
c) adoption document; or
d) other verifiable means.

• Registration certificate of primary holder of the right of residence

However, the first inconsistency arises with regard to Article 8(5)(c), where the transposing Article 26
of the IGD includes a positive discrimination in favour of family members of Hungarian nationals.
This results from the following. The IGD sets forth that if the EEA national (whom the family member
joins or accompanies) does not yet have the registration certificate, the family member needs to prove
that the primary beneficiary satisfies the conditions of being a worker, self-employed, student or has
the sufficient means of subsistence. The problem here is that family members, who are themselves
EEA nationals, are not mentioned separately, just like the separate provision that concerns family
members of Hungarian nationals, who are themselves EEA nationals.

To the contrary, family members of Hungarian nationals, who are themselves EEA nationals can prove
the entitlement by themselves (i.e. being a worker, student etc.), which puts family members of
Hungarian nationals, who are themselves EEA nationals in a more favourable position.

• Dependency (Article 8(5)(d) and Article 10(2)(d))

Pursuant to the IGD, the family member (in this case, the children and the parents) might prove their
family link with several documents, of which the Decree does not intend to give an exhaustive list.
The IGD is thus conforming to the requirements of the Directive. This list contains birth certificate;
marriage certificate; adoption document; or other verifiable means.

• Other family members (Articles 8(5)(e)-(f) and 10(2)(e)-(f))

The transposing instrument (Article 27 of the IGD) follows a single logic and thus introduces the same
requirement of one year cohabitation as seen under Article 3(2)(a) of the Directive with regard to the
transposition of Article 8(5)(e). Once again, the law requires one year’s previous cohabitation before
the EEA family member can rely upon such status. This flows from the fact that, at that point, the
FMA (Article 8(1)) did not differentiate between family members who are third country nationals and
EEA nationals.

In any case, including a one year cohabitation requirement goes against the spirit of the Directive and
mixes up two notions: being a member of the household and having a durable relationship with the
Union citizen (Article 8(5)(f)). Since the registered partnership is not yet recognised under Hungarian
law, the legislator intended certainly include a benchmark to verify the durability of relationship, but
with such clause, it brought all other family members under the same scope, if they are not a spouse,
dependant descendant or ascendant relatives.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 36/69
Europa Institute
(c) Family members who are not nationals of a Member State (Article 9-11)

• Administrative formalities (Article 9)

The transposition of Article 9 is in general correctly made by Article 22 (1) of the FMA and paragraph
(1) of Article 31 of the Government Decree 218/1999 (XII. 28) on certain offences.

Family members of a Hungarian or of an EEA national shall apply for the residence card within
maximum 93 days upon arrival, that is conform to Article 9(2). However, the proportional nature of
the rules on failure to comply with the registration (Article 9(3) of the Directive) obligation might be
questioned. Government decree 218/1999 (XII 28) on certain offences laid down in its Article 31(1)
that someone who fails to notify a data or to register can be fined up to 50.000 HUF (around 200
EUR), which is the same amount as can be imposed for providing false data or impeding the control
activities of authorities. The conformity checking could not reveal the administrative practice on that
point, whether the margin of appreciation of the CA differentiates between the said offences with
regard to their importance.

• Issue of residence cards (Article 10)

Article 10 addresses the issue of residence cards to family members of a Union citizen who are not
themselves Union citizens. There are a number of inconsistencies and more favourable provisions. The
issue of documents requested has already been analysed under the previous sub-section.

The Hungarian provisions (Articles 24, 26 and 37 of the IGD, Article 22(1)-(4) of the FMA) transpose
Article 10 partly correctly. The official denomination of the “residence card of a family member of a
Union citizen” is different in Hungarian, it is simply called “residence card” – where the denomination
might only be useful with regard to those family members who retain their residence right after the
death, departure of the EEA national, divorce, or annulment of marriage. In such cases, the “neutral”
wording of the document would speak in favour of the fact that they retain their residence right on a
personal basis.

Article 10(1) imposes the obligation to issue the residence card within 6 months from the date on
which the application is submitted. Article 22(4) of the FMA allows three months for such procedure,
including the decision and the issue of the card as well, which is more favourable.

Second, the reference to “travel documents” in the IGD with regard to Article 10(2)(a) of the Directive
that mentions passports only also constitutes a broader interpretation of the Directive. The IGD
includes travel documents (covering not only passports, but for example small border crossings as
well) in order to facilitate the entry of third country national family members. The IGD refers to the
“separate sheet” as well, that is a specific procedural rule, namely: “If the Republic of Hungary refuses
to recognise the travel document of a third-country national family member who is subject to a visa
requirement, a visa shall be issued in the form and with the content specified in Point 2 of Schedule
No. 2 to this Decree on a form for affixing a visa (hereinafter referred to as "separate sheet"), provided
that the person in question meets the requirements set out in Article 5 (1) c) and e) of Regulation (EC)
No. 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a
Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders.”

Third, point c) of Article 10.2. sets forth as a general rule, that the family member presents the
registration certificate of the primary holder of the residence right. In the absence of such registration
system, alternative means verifying the residence right might be used. The IGD is more favourable on
this point. Even if the registration system exists in Hungary, it also allows family members to have
recourse to any other proof of residence of the primary beneficiary, as a consequence of which, they
might be granted residence right.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 37/69
Europa Institute
The last general comment on Article 10 is that the transposing instruments leave a choice for the
family member as regards the verification of the existence of a family relationship – with the
exception of registered partnership, given the fact that this does not yet form part of our legal system.
(This is why point f) of Article 10.2. has not been transposed either.)

Under point e) of Article 10.2., with regard to being member of the household, Hungarian legislation
sets the requirement of one year’s previous cohabitation in the country of departure, which needs to be
certified by an authority of the said country. Apart from not conforming to the Directive, this provision
positively discriminates towards family members of Hungarian nationals, who are themselves third
country nationals, since in their case, no cohabitation is required (hence, no proof from an authority).

In practice, the Office for Immigration and Nationality requires that the family member fill in a form
on which he/she declares the health status (with regard to epidemic or contagious illnesses) and
whether undergoing medical treatment or not. Such declaration is not foreseen by the Directive. When
lodging the form, the authority issues a certificate that will be valid until the issuing of the residence
card (that shall be done within 3 months from the initiation of the procedure). The cost of the
procedure is 1.500 HUF (around 6 Euros) and the same sum shall be paid at each renewal of the card.

• Validity of residence cards (Article 11)

Article 11 provides for the period of validity of residence cards and provides that certain temporary
absences will not render the card invalid. Both the FMA and the IGD take into account Article 11(1)
and set forth the rules on validity of the residence card in conformity with the Directive. Although its
logic is different: as a family member, the validity of the residence card shall be aligned to that of the
primary beneficiary, but shall be valid for maximum five years The FMA foresees the possibility of
extending the validity if the card expires before five years.

The Administrative procedure costs 1500 HUF (around 6 EUR) for subsequent registrations and each
time a new form shall be filled in and verifying documents shall be handed in. (To this regard, see
comment under Article 25 as well)

Transposition of Article 11(2) is ambiguous and incorrect due to the following reasons: first, there is
an unclear reference in Article 13(1) of the FMA to the procedure to follow if the beneficiary left the
territory of Hungary for more than six months (regardless of the cases of more favourable treatment
that are laid down in Article 13(2) of the FMA). This procedure entails the declaration by the Office of
Immigration and Nationality that the person “surrendered his/her right of residence”.

Neither the FMA, nor the IGD gives further elements on the procedure to follow, or on the sanctions
that it might entail. Pursuant to Act LXVI of 1992, there is an obligation to deregister if one changes
his/her residence. The “surrender” of the right of residence implicitly refers to not having done so.
Therefore the person might be liable to sanctions pursuant to Article 31 of Government Decree
218/1999 (see above). If so, this goes against the spirit of the Directive which does not intend to
penalise those who change their residence, but to entail invalidity of the residence card. Such
guarantee is not contained in the transposing instrument.

The second ambiguity in Article 11(2) is linked to the broad phrasing of posting. Point b) of Article 13
of the FMA does not specify the destination of posting (to an other Member State or to a third
country), thus it might lead the Office to misinterpretation.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 38/69
Europa Institute
(d) Retention of the right of residence in the event of death, departure, divorce, annulment or
termination

• Retention of the right of residence by family members in the event of death or

departure of the Union citizen (Article 12)

- Family members who are EU citizens (Article 12(1))

Retention of the residence right of family members who are EU nationals in case of death or departure
of the EEA national is possible under two statuses pursuant to the FMA. The person might remain a
“family member”, if the Hungarian or the EEA nationals fulfilled the conditions listed in Article
7(1)(a)-(c) of the Directive. This flows from Article 6(1) of the FMA that covers those
EEA/Hungarian nationals who were engaged in gainful activity, had sufficient resources and
comprehensive sickness insurance in Hungary or who were students. As a consequence, it is not
possible to claim the status of “family member” based on Article 7(1)(d), which is contrary to the
Directive. In the second case, the person might gain an independent right of residence if he/she meets
the criteria of Article 7(1)(a) –(c) of the Directive. Relying upon Article 7(1)(d) is not possible in this
case either, contrary to the Directive.

- Family members who are not EU citizens (Article 12(2))

Third country family members enjoy a more favourable treatment pursuant to Hungarian law and as
regards Article 12(2) first subparagraph since the requirement of one year residence in the host
Member State is not included in the transposing provision (Article 11(1) of the FMA). Hungarian law
therefore does not impose a time-requirement and recognises the retention of the residence right as
“family member” regardless when the death occurred. In addition, the Hungarian legislation is also
more favourable regarding the second subparagraph. Hungarian law refers to “becoming an
unreasonable burden on Hungarian social assistance system” compared to the less binding “to become
a burden” in the wording of the Directive.

However, as mentioned above, the retention of the residence right is not independent, the person
remains linked to the previously existing residence right of the primary (and later the defunct) holder –
this is laid down by Article 11(1) of the FMA. As a consequence Article 12(2) third subparagraph is
incorrectly transposed.

The situation of the children of the defunct EEA national in Hungarian law is not in conformity with
the requirements of the Directive (Article 12(3) of the Directive). Article 12 of the FMA requires the
studies to be continuous; otherwise the residence right is withdrawn. Theoretically speaking, a long
lasting, serious illness, which makes it impossible for the child to follow a course would entail the end
of his/her residence right, which is not in line with the spirit of the Directive. This continuity is
ensured by a strict verification procedure set forth by the IGD that requires the child or his/her legal
representative to obtain a certificate of enrolment from the educational establishment twice a year and
present that to the Regional Office for Immigration and Nationality – all this procedure within 30 days
after the beginning of the semester.

A further question arises from the preceding: what happens in case of non-compliance with the
registration requirement, i.e. that the student or the legal representative fails to provide the authority
with the enrolment certificate within 30 days of the beginning of the semester? Probably the studies
will be considered interrupted, or if it is considered to be a delay, a financial charge will probably be
imposed.

The situation of the parent who exercises the right of custody over the child (regardless the nationality
of the parent) is also not in conformity with the Directive. Article 12 of the FMA grants the residence
right to the parent until the child reaches the majority age. In Hungary majority starts at the age of 18,
which means that if the child did not finish his/her studies in Hungary by that time, the parent
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 39/69
Europa Institute
exercising the right of custody will no longer have a residence right as family member. This seriously
endangers the situation of the child, who, pursuant to Article 2(2)(c) of the Directive is considered to
be a “child” until the age of 21 or until being dependent.

• Retention of the right of residence by family members in the event of divorce,

annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership (Article 13)

Article 13 is similar to Article 12 in that it provides that family members can retain their right of
residence whether there is a divorce, annulment or termination of a civil partnership. This latter is not
yet recognised by Hungarian law, thus the transposing Articles do not contain a reference to it. The
transposition of Article 13 in Hungarian law by Articles 10(3), 11(2)-(3) of the FMA and Article 29 of
the IGD is discriminative on several points. First of all, it restricts the retention of residence right to
spouses and not to family members in general, includes more favourable treatment for spouses of
Hungarian nationals, requires the fulfilment of additional economic criteria by the spouse (thus the
retention of the residence right is not automatic), it restricts the interpretation of “domestic violence”
to serious, intentional crimes sanctioned by court judgement and finally, it does not grant a personal
residence right, but maintains it derivative.

- Family members who are EU citizens (Article 13(1))

Article 10(3) of the FMA restricts the scope of beneficiaries of the residence right in case of divorce or
annulment of marriage to spouses only, whereas the Directive grants this right to all family members.
The residence right of the spouse remains conditional upon fulfilling certain economic conditions
pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) but the FMA does not cover cases under Article
7(1)(d) of the Directive (see comments above on Article 12(1)).

- Family members who are not EU citizens (Article 13(2))

The transposing Article 11(3) of the FMA is unclear whether its scope covers family members in
general or the spouse only. It is more probable that only spouses are covered, since Article 11(3) that
concerns “the family member” sends back to paragraph (2) which concerns the spouse. Article 11(3)
of the FMA adds economic conditions to the entitlement to residence right, corresponding to cases
under Article 7(1)(a) –(c) of the Directive, according to Article 13(2) second subparagraph of the
Directive.

• Article 13(2)(a)- marriage that lasted 3 years

Paragraphs 11(2) and 11(4) are more favourable than the Directive on the following points:

- the Directive foresees three years of marriage of which one shall be spent together on
the territory of the host Member State, while Article 11(2) of the FMA requires only two
years of marriage of which one year spent in Hungary.
- the Directive counts the three years prior to the initiation of the divorce or annulment
proceeding, whereas according to the FMA the two years need to be fulfilled prior to the
dissolution or annulment of the marriage. (With this, the FMA seems to incorporate the
findings of the Diatta7 judgement in which the ECJ declared that the cohabitation of the
spouses is not needed and that the initiation of divorce proceedings does not affect the
presumption on the existence of the marriage.)

Article 11(4) of the FMA contains another discriminatory rule, which entitles the spouse of the
Hungarian national, who is a third country national to benefit from an unconditional residence right if
the ex-spouse exercises the right of parental supervision as well over the child. With this, the FMA
discriminates against third country national family members of EEA nationals who will not have an

7
Aissatou Diatta v Land Berlin. Case 267/83.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 40/69
Europa Institute
unconditional right, but who will need to satisfy economic conditions in order to retain the residence
right. But it also differentiates in its logic (in favour of the parents of a Hungarian child) with regard to
those third country national parents whose spouse dies or leaves the country and who can exercise the
right of parental supervision only until the child reaches the majority age, or until the studies remain
continuous before that age.

• Article 13(2)(b) - custody

The ex-spouse will retain the residence right pursuant to Article 11(2) b) of the FMA if he/she is also
granted by the courts the custody over the child of the EEA national residing in the territory of the
Republic of Hungary, or is responsible for the custody of the child by agreement between the parents.

• Article 13(2)(c) - domestic violence

The Directive offers the possibility of retention of residence right for family members in case of
having suffered from domestic violence. Article 11(2) of the FMA in its heading opens this right only
for spouses, which is not conforming to the purpose of the Directive. Furthermore, the FMA narrows
the scope of application of the intended purpose of community law by covering only “exceptional
circumstances”. Pursuant to the example set forth by the FMA, such exceptional circumstance might
be that the spouse suffered from an intentional offence that has been sentenced by a court (point d) of
Article 29(1) of the IGD). The FMA thus sets the threshold higher than the Directive, since it seems to
exclude unintentional crimes and not only that, but as well those intentional offences that has not been
yet penalised by a court. This places a heavy burden on the spouse, since in any case, he/she shall wait
until the end of court proceedings before being able to claim (and support it with an evidence) the
retention of residence right based on Article 13(2)(c).

• Article 13(2)(d) - right of access to the minor

This provision was correctly and effectively done by Article 11(2)(d) of the FMA and Article 29(1)(d)
of the IGD.

Indirect conformity can be established with the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) (d) as well, since
the wording of the two instruments is different, but the end result is the same.

The Directive talks about the acquisition of permanent residence right, while Article 11(1) of the FMA
sets forth that the “residence right continue to exist”, which means that if it exists, it will lead to the
acquisition of the permanent residence right. Regarding the economic conditions that need to be
fulfilled, there is conformity between the Directive and the FMA.

Article 13(2) third subparagraph is incorrectly transposed or ambiguous, since the family member (in
this case, only the spouse) is entitled to the residence right as a “family member”, not on a personal
basis, as is required by the Directive. However, the denomination of the “residence card of a family
member of a Union citizen” is different in Hungarian, it is called simply “residence card” – where
such “neutral” wording would speak in favour of the fact that in the event of divorce or annulment of
marriage (such as in the event of death or departure of the EEA nation), the family member (here, the
spouse only) retains his/her residence right on a personal basis.

2.3.3 Retention of the right of residence (Article 14 and Article 15(2))

Article 14 provides for the circumstances in which persons retain the rights of residence granted by
Article 6 and Article 7 respectively. The transposition of this Article by Hungarian law is very
burdensome and does not offer sufficient guarantee that the person whose presence represent a burden
on the social security system of Hungary will not be expelled automatically, more so if we take into
account that there is a margin of appreciation on behalf of the Office when assessing the sufficiency of
resources.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 41/69
Europa Institute
(a) Residence for less than 3 months (Article 14(1))

Article 5 of the FMA and 35 of the IGD establishes that the right of residence for up to three months
incorrectly.

The general rule laid down by Article 21 of the IGD is that the Office will take into account the per
capita earnings of the household. No other minimum threshold is set, but the one put forward by the
Directive, i.e., the minimum old-age social security pension. In case the per capita earnings do not
reach this threshold, the Office might examine on a case-by-case basis other assets, such as:

- whether the applicant is the owner, beneficial owner or user of the real estate property in
which they reside;
- payments from the social security or social assistance system of any EEA Member
State;
- income from funds or benefit plans financed by payment of membership dues or other
regular contributions;
- income from a deposit account or contract registered in any EEA Member State or any
other bank or investment asset, a bank guarantee provided by a credit institution
established in any EEA Member State or that is guaranteed by a legal person established
in any EEA Member State;
- income from maintenance or alimony supported by documentary evidence.

Nevertheless, when evaluating the assets, articles of everyday use, household equipment, accessories;
any property serving as the residence of the EEA national and his dependant family members; the
vehicle of handicapped persons and any assets which are required for the EEA national's gainful
activity can not be taken into account. No evidence could be gathered on the margin of appreciation of
the Office to this regard.

The issue that arises with regard to Article 14(1) of the Directive is that the transposing Article 35 of
the IGD has been recently modified in a way that at the time of the notification of the transposition,
defined that a person is considered as having become an unreasonable burden if they benefited from
social allowances for more than six months. Now, this text has been modified. A person is considered
to be an unreasonable burden to the State if she/he is benefiting from elderly allowance, regular social
allowance and in care contribution for more than three months. In addition, pursuant to point b) of
Article 35(1), when calculating the three months, the previous benefit periods and the duration of the
intermittence of the previous payment need to be aggregated. This means that the person – as soon as
he/she enters into the third months of benefiting from the allowances – will be subject to an evaluation
by the Office for Immigration and Nationality. Recourse to social allowance for three months leads to
consider the person as unreasonable burden, which seems to build in an automatism in the system.
Regular recourse to social allowance (that might ensure the minimal income) might deprive the person
from the residence right automatically.

This does not facilitate the free movement of persons and is also against the aim of Article 14(3) of the
Directive. Although there is no automatic expulsion here, being considered as an unreasonable burden
entails the discretion of the State to refuse the residence right for the person concerned on the territory
of Hungary.

More favourable treatment for jobseekers (flowing from the Antonissen judgment), who could bring a
proof of having genuine chances to find an employment within a reasonable period of time is not
mentioned. From Article 7(3)(c) it can be deduced that jobseekers enjoy a more favourable treatment
than “other” residents, though there is no express guarantee for that here.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 42/69
Europa Institute
(b) Residence for more than 3 months (Article 14(2))

Article 14(2) has been transposed by Article 14 of the FMA and Article 35 of the IGD mainly
correctly, however only indirect conformity can be established at several places.

As regards the first subparagraph of Article 14(2), the FMA correctly transposes that the residence
right of EEA nationals ceases if the person no longer fulfils the conditions of the residence right (no
economic activity, sufficient resources or student status) or if he/she is prohibited from entry and
residence (on this, see comments under Article 27.)

Transposition of the second subparagraph is incorrect for the following reasons:

The Directive foresees that reasonable doubts on whether the person satisfies the residence conditions
might entail verification of such circumstances. However, Hungarian legislation goes further than that:
not only the existence of residence conditions but the fulfilment of reporting obligations might also be
verified. This implies that EEA citizens and their family members are checked for the fulfilment of
material conditions (flowing from the Directive) and procedural requirements as well (flowing from
the FMA). However, the ECJ declared in the Martinez Sala judgment8 that the documents do not
create the residence right, but only attest the right.

Article 14(2) is clear on the point that such checks cannot be carried out systematically. Nevertheless
there is a gap in the FMA on that point. Such guarantee cannot be deduced implicitly from the
wording of other Articles. Moreover, the equivalent wording of “reasonable doubt” in the FMA is
“when an information comes to light” – which rather leads to the conclusion that if an information is
received from an other competent authority with regard to the residence or other conditions of the stay
of the EEA national or his/her family member, the check will indeed be automatic.

No proof from the administrative practice could be gathered regarding that point. An additional
problem that needs to be pointed out here is that if the authority systematically verifies the fulfilment
of residence right conditions and the reporting obligations, it entails systematic fines based on Article
31 of Government Decree 218/1999 (XII. 29.). On certain offences this amounts to a maximum of
50.000 HUF (around 200 Euros).

(c) Protection against expulsion (Article 14(3)-(4))

• General protection (Article 14(3))

Article 14(3) provides that an expulsion measure shall not be the automatic consequence of a Union
citizen’s or her family member’s recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State. As
explained above (see Article 14(1)), the current wording of the transposing instruments is ambiguous.
Articles 21 and 35(2) of the IGD define the notion of when the person is considered to have become
an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of Hungary. Setting the threshold to three
months recourse to certain social benefits (whereas the benefit periods are aggregated over the years)
and not including more specific conditions for job-seekers, leads one to presume that the alleged
margin of the authority to decide whether the person has the sufficient resources or not is rather an
automatism for withdrawing the residence right.

No information could be gathered regarding the administrative practice on this point. The text IGD
leaves it up to the Office to appreciate the financial situation of the individual (as to the existence of
sufficient resources) but Article 35(2) is already more stringent when it comes to recourse to social
assistance, where the three months are an objective deadline to declare that the person is considered an
unreasonable burden for the social assistance system. The suspension of the residence right seems to
flow from this logic, but it is not expressly written in the IGD.

8
María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern. Case C-85/96.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 43/69
Europa Institute
 • Workers and self-employed persons, and job seekers (Article 14(4))

Article 14(4) provides that an expulsion order may not be adopted against Union citizens or their
family members if the Union citizens are workers or self-employed persons or if the Union citizens
entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment. In this case, the Union
citizens and their family members may not be expelled for as long as the Union citizens can provide
evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being
engaged.

There are no provisions to this regard in the transposing legislation and indirect conformity can not be
deduced either. There is no guarantee in the transposing legislation that no expulsion measure can be
adopted against economically active persons. The FMA only refers to no longer fulfilling the
conditions for the residence right, which might, indeed indicate that the person is no longer a worker
or self-employed.

(d) Article 15(2)-(3) expiry of document not a ground for expulsion

The first paragraph of Article 15 refers to Articles 30 and 31 of the FMA, which were themselves
transposed incorrectly by Hungarian law (see comment under those Articles). Therefore, the
transposition of Article 15 is also defective (see below for details).

Article 15(2) of the Directive provides that the expiry of the identity card or passport on the basis of
which the person concerned entered the host Member State and was issued with a registration
certificate or residence card shall not constitute a ground for expulsion. The transposing Articles
(Article 40(2), 41(1) of the FMA and 51 of the IGD) are ambiguous in their wording as to whether
expulsion may be imposed if the identity card or passport expired. The administrative practice offers a
good indicator: the person issued with a registration certificate or residence card shall carry the
document together with the identity card or passport. Point b) of article 40(2) of the FMA states that
the person who “does not have the right of entry or residence but has nevertheless referred to the
competent authority false information or untrue facts in order to verify a right of entry or residence” may
be expelled by the Office for Immigration and Nationality. This article may be interpreted as being
contrary to the Directive, since a person might “refer false information” to the competent authority in
case if the identity card or passport expired but not the residence card or registration certificate.

Thus, it seems that the validity of the identity documents could in theory affect that of the residence
documents. If the identity document expired, this would entail the invalidity of the residence
document, in which case the person would fall under the scope of Article 40(2).

Further proof could not be gathered on this point. However, according to the current regulation, if a
person, who “does not have the right of entry or residence but who has nevertheless referred to the
competent authority false information or untrue facts in order to verify a right of entry or residence”
(Article 40(2) point b) of the FMA) may be expelled. Since the “right of entry” refers to the passport of
to the identity card (with regard to EEA nationals) and the expiry of these documents entails that the
right of entry might be questioned, the authorities might expel the person from Hungary. This is
contrary to the conclusions of the Martinez Sala9 judgment and as well the requirements of Article
15(2) of the Directive.

As a consequence of such expulsion, an entry and residence ban will be imposed on the person
pursuant to Article 41(1) of the FMA. Entry and residence ban might take two forms:

a) it is not linked to expulsion, it is ordered in respect of persons residing in unknown places or

outside the territory of the Republic of Hungary, with regard to whom the Republic of

9
María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern. Case C-85/96.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 44/69
Europa Institute
 Hungary has undertaken an international legal obligation to enforce a prohibition of entry and
residence or with regard to whom the Council of the European Union has decided to enforce
a prohibition of entry and residence (Article 38 of the FMA);
b) in the second case, the ban completes an expulsion order based on grounds of public policy.

The theoretical point here is that a person might “refer false information” to the competent authority
in the sense of article 41(2) of the FMA, if his/her identity card or passport expired but not the
residence card or registration certificate. Expulsion for providing false data regarding the right of entry
(where valid identity document figures amongst the conditions) entails the discretionary power of the
CA to expel the person and thus, to impose an entry and residence ban from one year up to five years,
which is incorrect and is contrary to Article 15(3) and the spirit of the Directive.

2.4 Right of permanent residence

2.4.1 General rule for Union citizens and their family members (Article 16: Eligibility)

Transposition of Article 16 of the Directive, as found in Articles 16, 17(2) and 19(1) of the FMA is
incomplete and incorrect. Article 16 of the Directive sets forth the conditions for obtaining the
permanent resident right, whereas the transposing Article 16(1) a) of the FMA does not seem to
guarantee that the permanent residence right shall not be subject to the conditions under Chapter III
and this can not be deduced a contrario from other provisions either.

Article 16(1) a) of the FMA transposing Article 16(2) is incomplete since it does not declare the
inapplicability of rules on residence right under Chapter III (in case of the FMA, Articles 6-15). This
entails that in practice, family members who apply for a permanent residence card are currently
subject to the same procedural rule as those who apply for a residence card (same form to be filled in
and the same amount of 1.500 HUF to pay). This includes that for the issuing and renewal of the card,
the Office for Immigration and Nationality requires all justifying documents and carries out a
verification within 3 months. To this regard, see comment under 20(1) and 25. as well.

Article 16(2) as transposed by Article 16(2) of the FMA discriminates between family members of
EEA and Hungarian nationals in favour of the latter. Family members of the EEA national acquire the
permanent residence right after five years of uninterrupted and lawful residence in Hungary (on the
notion of “uninterrupted”, see comment above); while family members of Hungarian nationals do so
after having lived in same household with the Hungarian national for one year. Spouses of Hungarian
nationals acquire the permanent residence right after two years of marriage and continuous
cohabitation. Such provision does not seem to meet the requirement under Article 17(2) of the
Directive either.

The above discrimination can not be disregarded by classifying it simply an “internal situation”,
because the FMA creates a legal presumption, that the Hungarian national is a migrant, whose family
members will thus fall under the scope of application of the FMA. The difference between the
acquisition periods of permanent residence right is therefore contrary to the Directive.

Hungarian law correctly transposed the cases of temporary absences which do not affect the continuity
of the residence, though the wording it uses to express “continuity” is different. Articles 16(1) and 17
of the FMA set the conditions that “shall not constitute an interruption”. Given the fact that non-
interruption (according to the wording of the FMA) is the condition for obtaining the permanent
residence right, this different wording does not affect conformity.

However, the transposition of Article 16(3). suffers from the same ambiguity that has been mentioned
under Article 11(2) above. In both cases, the FMA does not specify the destination of posting (to
another Member State or to a third country) that might lead to misinterpretation for the implementing
authority.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 45/69
Europa Institute
Article 16(4) is incorrectly transposed. Intro to Article 16(4)...Point b) of Article 19(1) of the FMA
declares the loss of permanent residence right in case of being subject to entry or residence ban. It
seems that the FMA brings under the same Article two different provisions, namely Article 21 and
Article 28(2). This latter provision allows the expulsion of those who acquired the right of permanent
residence on serious grounds of public policy while Article 21 sets forth that the continuity of
residence is broken by any expulsion decision duly enforced against the person concerned. However,
at this point, the Directive requires that the right to permanent residence not be lost on other grounds
than an absence for two consecutive years.

2.4.2 Acquisition of the right of permanent residence for workers/self-employed

person and their family members (Article 17)

The Article that sets forth Exemptions for persons no longer working in the host Member State and
their family members is transposed by Article 18 of the FMA and Article 34 of the IGD. Transposition
is overwhelmingly correct, with the exception of Articles 17(1) c and 17(2).

Article 17 is generally correctly transposed with even more favourable elements, but this suffers from
three important omissions: it fails to transpose the second subparagraph of Article 17(1)(c) and
wrongly transposes the third subparagraph of the same point with regard to persons who were not
employed not of their own making. For these persons, these periods do not account as work. The third
lack concerns the workers and the self-employed who are married to a Hungarian national (given the
fact that registered partnership is not yet recognised under Hungarian law) and who could benefit from
the acquisition of the permanent residence right without the length of residence or employment taken
into account, by virtue of Article 17(2) of the Directive, but which possibility is ruled out by the FMA.
Indeed, the FMA does not make a reference to family members of Hungarian nationals, who are
workers or self-employed and does not grant them more favourable treatment. To the contrary, Article
16(2) b) of the FMA sets forth that the spouse of the Hungarian national can acquire the permanent
residence after a marriage of two years, including cohabitation.

• The exceptions under Article 17(1) and 17(2)

With regard to Article 17(1)(c), Article 18(1) d) of the FMA extends the destination countries to EEA
countries and not only EU Member States and does not set any requirement as to the frequency of
return; while in the third subparagraph of Article 17(1)(c), the Directive refers to involuntarily
unemployed, whereas Article 18(2) of the FMA simply requires that the person be a jobseeker.

As regards the wording of the FMA, it uses as an equivalent to “continuous residence” the term
“residing without interruption”. The two notions are the same, since the definition of “without
interruption” as set forth by Article 17(2) of the FMA coincides with the definition given in Article
16(3) of the Directive. The other specificity of the wording is the term “gainful employment” that the
FMA uses in order to cover workers and self-employed, i.e. those who are engaged in an economic
activity. With regard to the second subparagraph of Article 17(1)(a) and the entitlement of self-
employed persons to old-age pension, Act LXXX of 1997 on eligibility for social security and private
pensions, brings private entrepreneurs under its scope of application and applies the general scheme to
them, meaning that the retirement age is 62. This is in line with the Directive, which sets the age limit
of 60 only in cases where there is no right to an old-age pension for certain categories of self-
employed.

• The exceptions under Article 17(3)

The transposing Article 18(1) and (4) are correct and even more favourable. The quoted paragraph (1)
refers to those family members that acquire the residence right before five years of continuous
residence in Hungary. There is no common residence requirement for the family member (with the
worker), therefore it is a more favourable provision. The wording of paragraph (4) does not specify the
criteria of being a worker or a self-employed, nevertheless since this paragraph sends back to
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 46/69
Europa Institute
paragraph (1), there it becomes clear that only those EEA nationals are covered who are engaged in a
gainful activity.

• The exceptions under Article 17(4)

Article 17(4)(c) is not transposed due to the fact that Hungarian legislation does not recognise the loss
of citizenship by virtue of marriage, thus there was no need to transpose the said Article.

• The documents requested for verification of conditions

The IGD sets a verification procedure with regard to the beneficiaries of Article 17(1)(a)-(c).

With regard to workers and the self-employed, the required proof needs to verify two things:

1) the entitlement to pension rights pursuant to Acts 80 and 81 of 1997 on the Eligibility for
Social Security Benefits and Private pensions (Regarding the pension age, see comment at the
second subparagraph of Article 17(1)(a));
2) the exercise of the gainful activity in Hungary. With regard to workers who suffered a
permanent incapacity to work resulting from an accident of work or an occupational disease, a
medical diagnosis is needed of which the reduction of the work capacity can be established.
Commuters need to bring a copy of an authentic instrument or other document to verify of
having been engaged in gainful employment in an EEA Member State.

2.4.3 Acquisition of the right of permanent residence by family members who are
not nationals of a MS and retained their right of residence (Article 18)

Article 18 is correctly transposed by Article 16(1) b) of the FMA. Family members who do not lose
their residence right following the death of the EEA/Hungarian national or following divorce or
annulment of marriage, acquire the permanent right of residence after five years of continuous
residence. Point c) of the same Article covers “persons who have the right of residence in respect of an
EEA or Hungarian national” and thus intends to cover members of the household, such as partners,
partners enjoy similar rights than spouses under Hungarian law.

2.4.4 Documents certifying permanent residence for Union citizens (Article 19)

Articles 19 and 20 were transposed together by the FMA and IGD, bringing under the same Article
different categories of beneficiaries (EEA nationals; family members, who are themselves EEA
nationals; family members who are third country nationals). Article 19 is wrongly transposed, since
the document issued to EEA nationals entitles “permanent residence card”, such as the document that
certifies the permanent residence right of family members regardless their nationality. This is
problematic for several reasons. Since the document bears the same name for different categories of
beneficiaries, the procedure of application and renewal laid down by the IGD is also the same.
However, EEA nationals should not be subject to renewal and further administrative procedures once
the document is obtained.

Currently Articles 24 of the FMA and 38 of the IGD set forth the following rules for obtaining the
permanent residence card (applicable to EEA nationals as well):

- application for a permanent residence card shall be lodged with the Regional Office
for Immigration and Nationality;
- the document verifying the continuity and the legality of residence in Hungary,
together with a valid identity document;
- the Office checks the legality of the residence within three months and issues the
permanent residence card or rejects the application;
- the permanent residence card is automatically renewed in every ten years.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 47/69
Europa Institute
Contrary to the above, the administrative practice10 diverts from the FMA and the IGD, since:

- the person needs to apply for a permanent residence card by filling in a form, handing
it in with all documents justifying the entitlement for permanent residence (including
the proof of being legally resident, the status and the continuity of the residence) and
verifying his/her identity by presenting a valid identity card or passport;
- a sum of 1.500 HUF is to be paid (to this regard, see comment under Article 25);
- the Office for Immigration and Nationality deals with the application within three
months and issues (renews) the residence card or refuses the application;
- the same procedure is to follow (including the verification of the entitlement!) each
time the permanent residence card is renewed (in every ten years).

Both the FMA and the IGD are contrary to the Directive by submitting the application to the
verification to anything else, than the duration of the stay (NB.: according to the IGD, the continuity
and the legality of the residence shall be verified), furthermore, that the EEA national needs to renew
his/her permanent residence card in every ten years. The application is not dealt with “as soon as
possible”, as required by the Directive, but within three months pursuant to the general administrative
deadlines applied in Hungary.

The administrative practice goes even further with non-conformity: documents, proving the legality
and the status of stay need to be submitted, and not only at the first time, but at each time when the
permanent residence card is renewed.

The above rules and practice go against the spirit of the Directive and Article 19.

2.4.5 Permanent residence card for family members who are not nationals of a MS
(Article 20)

Account needs to be taken of comment under Article 19.

Article 20 is correctly transposed by the IGD and the FMA as regards the following facts:

- the card entitles “permanent residence card”;

- the card is issued within three months (on this point, the IGD is more favourable,
since the Directive says “within six months of the submission”);
- the card is issued with a validity of ten years;
- two years of consecutive absences put an end to permanent residence right and the end
of permanent residence right entails the invalidity of the permanent residence card;
- if the card is not renewed before it expires, Article 25(1) of the FMA foresees that the
family member, who is a third country national shall present valid excuses or shall
verify the conditions of entitlement to permanent residence right. (Article 20(2) allows
Member States to impose proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions on the third
country national family member if the card expires before renewal.)

However, there is inconformity with the requirements of the Directive in the administrative practice
that does not renew the residence card automatically, but links the renewal of the card to verification
of entitlement, legality and continuity of residence. Furthermore, the major problem with the
permanent residence card is that the same document serves to attest the permanent residence right of
three categories of beneficiaries:

10
Information leaflets downloaded from the home-page of the Office for Immigration and Nationality:
[Link]
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 48/69
Europa Institute
 - EEA nationals;
- family members, who are themselves EEA nationals;
- family members who are third country nationals.

The FMA overcomes this issue at one point, in its Article 25(1), where it foresees the obligation of
renewal of the permanent residence card before its expiry for third country national family members
only. This is an internal inconsistency in the text, which establishes conformity with the Directive on
this point (Article 20(2) of the Directive).

In case the person fails to apply before the expiry of the residence document, the “sanction” is the
verification of entitlement again. The same procedure will apply as under art. 38 (3)-(4) of the IGD,
meaning that the verification procedure will take place as seen under article 20 (1) of the Directive.
The requirement is similar and thus non-discriminatory as regards renewal of address cards for
Hungarian nationals, where persons shall bring a proof of residing at the place that they intend to
indicate as address or domicile pursuant to Act LXVI of 1992 on the registration of address and
personal data of citizens.

However, transposition of Article 20 (2) of the Directive is ambiguous, because it submits family
members who apply for the permanent residence card after the expiry of the previous residence
document to a procedure where he needs to present “valid excuses”. If he can not provide valid
excuses, he will be submitted to the same verification procedure as announced under article 20 (1),
which was flagged as incorrect. Furthermore, the FMA does not define what “valid excuses” are so
this could lead to a quasi-automatic verification of the entitlement.

2.4.6 Continuity of residence (Article 21)

Article 21 of the Directive has been incorrectly transposed by Article 32 of the IGD and point b) of
paragraph (1) of Article 19 of the FMA.

The transposition of Article 21 is incorrect, since the Directive lays down the rules on when the
continuity of residence is broken, applicable only before the permanent residence right is acquired.
Point b) of Article 19(1) of the FMA steps out of this logic and allows that the permanent residence
right be broken if an entry and residence ban is ordered. Pursuant to Article 41(1) of the FMA, an
entry and residence ban shall be imposed on the person whose expulsion was ordered. Therefore, point
b) of Article 19(1) of the FMA is contrary to the Directive, since the Directive intends to offer more
guarantees for persons who have acquired the permanent residence right and allows for the
interruption of the continuity of residence only before the acquisition of the permanent resident status.

As regards the means of proof by which the person may verify the continuity of residence, Articles 19
– 30 of the IGD corresponding to the beneficiaries’ categories offer a vide range of choice, in most of
the cases offering an exemplificative list.

2.5 Common provisions (Articles 22-26)

2.5.1 Territorial scope (Article 22)

As regards territorial scope, we do not find a directly corresponding Article in the transposing
instrument corresponding to the first sentence of Article 22. However, indirect conformity can be
deduced from several Articles in which reference is made to the territory of the State. Just to mention
the two most important allusions: Article 3(1)-(2) of the FMA refers to the right of entry to the
territory of the Republic of Hungary. Article 16 of the FMA requires for the acquisition of permanent
residence right five years legal and continuous residence on the territory of the Republic of Hungary.
Given the fact that Hungary is a unitary State, legislation applies with regard to the whole territory of
the country.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 49/69
Europa Institute
The second phrase of Article 22 is not applicable; no partial territorial bans are imposed on persons
falling under the scope of application of the FMA. No such restrictions are known as regards travelling
from a Schengen State to a non-Schengen one.

2.5.2 Right to take up employment by family members (Article 23)

The transposition of Article 23 leads to misinterpretation as regards the entitlement of family members
who are third country nationals to take up employment in Hungary. This flows implicitly from the
FMA, nevertheless the only express provision which we find to this regard is in Article 11 of the FMA
declaring the retention of the residence right for the family member in case of death or departure of the
EEA/Hungarian national and making it conditional upon the exercise of an economic activity. This
implicitly tells us about the possibility to be engaged in a salaried activity “previously”, so while being
already a family member. Nevertheless, such reference leads to misinterpretation.

With regard to family members, who are EEA nationals, the problem might be solved by the direct
applicability of Article 39 of the EC Treaty. However, the FMA reflects the same logic with regard to
this category and contains an express reference to the retention of residence right in case of death or
departure of the EEA national, which is linked to fulfilling the economic criteria. However, this does
not lead to inconformity due to the directly applicable primary law.

2.5.3 Equal treatment (Article 24)

Article 24 of the Directive provides for the principle of equal treatment. There is no specific
transposition of the equal treatment provision in the FMA. This may not be problematic regarding EU
citizens, given the direct effect of the Treaty (Article 12 of the TEC), but it could become problematic
with respect to family members who are third country nationals. However, the FMA and the
modifying Decrees contain explicit provisions that bring persons benefitting from the right of free
movement and residence under the scope of existing laws and decrees in various fields ranging from
employment in the public service to entitlement to social allowances.

The general schema of how these acts were modified is the following:
- there is a reference to EEA nationals;
- there is a general rule on “persons benefiting from the right of residence” pursuant to the
FMA, or at other places the laws say “pursuant to a separate act”.

The quoted laws have been modified to satisfy the requirement of equal treatment. Thus, formal
(literal) conformity is established. However in practice, there are countless instances of circumstances
in which the principle of equal treatment might be violated, so it is difficult to assess the conformity of
the practice.

With regard to Article 24(2) of the Directive on the possible restrictions a Member State can provide
for the entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence or, where appropriate,
the longer period provided for in Article 14(4)(b), or the restriction prior to acquisition of the right of
permanent residence. Hungary chose to extend the personal scope of the following Acts on EEA
nationals and family members of EEA/Hungarian nationals, who are third country nationals:
- Social Administration and Social Assistance
- Child Protection and Custody Administration
- Rights of and Equal Opportunities for Disabled Persons
- Family Support
- Student credit system

Therefore, Hungary did not make use of the derogation provided for under Article 24 (2) of the
Directive, but intended to ensure access to diverse social assistances. For more details on these
provisions, see Annexes I A and I B to the ToC listing all the provisions under Hungarian law.

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 50/69
Europa Institute
 2.5.4 General provisions concerning residence documents (Article 25)

Transposition of Article 25 was done by Articles 20(3), 32(2) of the FMA and point a) of Article 5(3)
of the TAD. Transposition of Article 25 is incomplete and incorrect in the FMA and in the TAD. The
inconsistency with regard to Article 25(1) arises from the fact that Article 32(2) of the FMA foresees
only the verification of the residence right by “any acceptable way”. other than the presentation of the
residence document. However, the FMA does not guarantee that the exercise of the residence right and
even more importantly, the completion of an administrative formality will not be made conditional
upon the possession of a residence document. In order to establish a possible indirect conformity, the
sectoral legislations and administrative practice should be checked, which goes beyond the scope of
this study.

Article 25(2) allows two possibilities concerning the issuing of residence documents. Either being free
of charge, or being charged the same amount as nationals for the issuing of similar documents. The
first solution (free of charge) is applied with regard to issuing the visa for family members of the EEA
national. Inconformity rises with regard to the second possibility, when charging the issuing of the
document.

Pursuant to point V of Annex II of the TAD, the legislator intended to charge the issue of the
registration certificate with 1.000 HUF (cc. 4 EUR), the issue and renewal of residence and permanent
residence cards with 1.500 HUF. Article 25(2) of the Directive allows the charges if they do not
exceed that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents. This is not the case.
Application for the first address card (all Hungarian and foreign residents in Hungary need to be in
possession of such card) is done in the framework of the application for registration certificate and
residence card. Issuing the address card is free of charge (for all applicants, not only Hungarian
nationals) if the issue is due to a change of address or the issue of an identity card. In case the address
card needs to be modified for other reasons than change of address (i.e., change in the name), then it
costs 500 HUF (cc. 2 EUR). The price is 1000 HUF (cc. 4 EUR) if the issue of the new address card is
due to loss or damage of the previous card.

The above mentioned 1.500 HUF charge for the issue of the registration certificate/residence card can
thus not be justified, since it imposes different charges on foreigners benefitting from the free
movement right an Hungarians in a similar case, whereas registering their address is free of charge.

2.5.5 Checks (Article 26)

Article 26 provides that Member States may carry out checks to ensure that beneficiaries of the
Directive carry their residence cards in the same way as nationals carry their identity card. Article
32(1) of the FMA refers to the presentation of a “document verifying his right of residence”. If so
requested by the police, this is not discriminative, since Hungarian nationals also have the obligation
to carry a piece of identity with them. However the transposition becomes ambiguous, because in
practice the residence document is valid together with the identity document. To this regard, Article 26
does not set a requirement. If the person is unable to present the requested document, a fine might be
imposed.

2.6 Restrictions on the right of entry and residence on grounds of public policy,
public security and public health

2.6.1 General principles (Article 27)

The transposition of Article 27 is done essentially by Article 33 of the FMA and partly by the
Constitution as regards the right for Hungarian nationals to return to the country. There are two points
on which the FMA diverts from the Directive, though this diversion does not affect conformity.

1) Article 33 of the FMA allows for restriction of the free movement right on the following grounds:
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 51/69
Europa Institute
 - public order
- public security
- national security
- public health
and the personal behaviour of the individual must affect a fundamental interest of the society. In
addition, a complementary reason, i.e., the invocation of ‘national security’, is added. This could be in
conformity with the Directive as it seems to reformulate the criterion in Article 30(2), i.e., the
‘interests of the State security’.

We can learn more about the interpretation of the “interest of the State security” under Article 61 of
the Criminal Code (quoted under Article 33.1. of the Directive), that implies serious crimes sanctioned
under the Criminal Code. However, the Code refers vaguely to persons whose presence is undesirable
in the country, which might lead to divergent interpretation.

2) With regard to the second subparagraph of Article 27(2), the FMA does not use the term “serious
threat”, but “serious danger”. The two notions are not the same, because ‘threat’ refers to a potential
danger, whereas ‘danger’ is already the present reality, an actual threat. Using the different term leads
that the FMA sets a higher threshold, so literally interpreted, it does not affect conformity. However,
in practice it is reflected as follows: persons committing a serious offence will be sentenced by a court
and at the same time, the court will decide whether to order the expulsion or not. (To this regard, see
comment under Article 33(1).)

The transposition of Article 27 suffers from the lack of several important guarantees. The following
gaps/inconsistencies were identified:

• The FMA does not contain an express guarantee against expulsion on economic grounds
(Article 27(1) of the Directive)

The provisions of the FMA implicitly allow the expulsion if the person no longer fulfils the residence
criteria due to insufficiency of resources, for example. Pursuant to Article 14(1) of the FMA, the
residence right of the EEA national or the family member (regardless the nationality) ceases if the
person no longer fulfils the residence criteria. The residence condition is deemed to be fulfilled in
cases corresponding to Article 7(1)(a)-(c) of the Directive. Thus, if a person is no longer self-
sufficient, the Office will conclude, in the form of a decision the termination of his/her residence right
(Article 15(1) of the FMA), as a consequence of which, the person will have to quit the territory of
Hungary within three months (Article 15(2)-(4).). If the person fails to leave the country within the
prescribed period, the Office might take the decision to expel the person pursuant to Article 40(2) a) of
the FMA. (Regarding the expulsion procedure, see comment under Article 30(3) of the Directive.) As
the procedure described here confirms, expulsion is possible on economic grounds, which goes
counter to the spirit of the Directive and Article 27(1), disregarding the obligation “not to be invoked
to service economic ends”.

• The FMA does not offer sufficient guarantee against expulsions taken on grounds of previous
criminal convictions (Article 27(2) of the Directive)

The definition of the relevant Article (Article 33 of the FMA) prescribes that the decision can be based
exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and does not exclude taking into
account previous criminal records.

• The third inconsistency is that there is no reference to special preventive aims (second
subparagraph of Article 27(2), nor general prevention is excluded by Article 33 of the FMA.

• Article 27(3) has not been transposed,

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 52/69
Europa Institute
Hence there is no reference to the obligation of the Office for Immigration and Nationality to
cooperate with CA of other Member States. This becomes burdensome, since the general deadline for
administrative proceedings is three months pursuant to Act CXL of 2004 on the General rules of
Administrative proceedings and Services. On the basis of this Act, we can deduce that in the absence
of an express obligation to cooperate, the national authority will deal with the request within three
months and not two, as required by the Directive. Furthermore, the conformity check did not find any
evidence regarding the enquiries sent by the Office to CA of other Member States and on how often or
systematically these enquiries are carried out.

• Re-entry is guaranteed by the Constitution for all Hungarian nationals. However Article 27(4)
of the Directive also requires the readmission of those whose nationality is in dispute. There is
no corresponding provision in the Constitution or in the FMA to this regard.

2.6.2 Protection against expulsion (Article 28)

The transposition of Article 28 is more generous on the following points and has been transposed by
Articles 19(1), 42(1) and 44 of the FMA:

• Article 28(1)

Since Article 28(1) gives an open list of the considerations that need to be taken into account before
expulsion decision is taken (“considerations, such as…”), therefore, the FMA adds four further criteria
when evaluating the personal circumstances of the person subject to an expulsion order. These are the
following (Article 44 of the FMA):
- the seriousness and the nature of the committed crime;
- the duration of family relations in Hungary;
- the number of children in Hungary, their age and the frequency of contacts with them;
- any difficulties the family members might encounter if they were forced to settle in the territory
of that State.

The criterion on the seriousness and nature of the crime committed shall be read together with Article
33 of the FMA, which requires the affectation of a fundamental interest of the society in order to
justify an expulsion measure. The additional conditions set forth by the FMA do not affect conformity.

• Article 28(2)

Article 28(2) of the Directive lays down a fundamental guarantee for non-expulsion of permanent
resident EEA nationals and family members and there is no corresponding guarantee in Hungarian
law. To the contrary, Article 19(1) of the FMA sets forth that the permanent residence right ceases if
the person is subject to entry and residence ban. With an ‘a contrario’ reasoning it means that an
expulsion measure can be ordered even if permanent residence right is acquired. (An “independent”
entry and residence ban is ordered against persons residing in unknown places or outside the territory
of the Republic of Hungary; or against persons with regard to whom the Republic of Hungary took an
international obligation of entry and residence. An Entry and residence ban is also imposed on those
who are expelled for other reasons, such as on grounds of public policy.) The FMA does not specify
the ratione personae of Article 19, thus the general rules of personal scope apply i.e. EEA nationals
and family members, irrespective of their nationality are covered – thus there is inconformity with the
Directive.

• Article 28(3)

The FMA is more favourable than Article 28(3), when it protects not only EU citizens against
expulsion (the scope of application of the FMA covers EEA nationals), but also their family members,
regardless their nationality. Furthermore, the FMA does not have recourse to the exception offered by

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 53/69
Europa Institute
the Directive and thus expulsion is ruled out even if imperative grounds of public policy would justify
it.

With regard to point a) of Article 28(3)(a), point a) of Article 42(1) of the FMA requires “more than
ten years” of residence on the territory of the Republic, whereas the Directive only says “previous ten
years”. These two wordings are not conform and the Hungarian legislation is more restrictive – even if
logically, more than ten years residence can be invoked one day after the tenth year elapses. It seems
that it leaves rather a margin of appreciation for administrative authorities.

Transposition of point b) of Article 28(3) by Article 42(1) of the FMA is also problematic, given the
divergence in the two wordings. The Directive requires the “best interest of the child”, the FMA refers
only to the “interest ” of the child. Since Hungary is a signatory State of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, this should not create a problem. However, literally, the different thresholds (best
interest / interest) lead to a weaker protection of the child when it comes to possible expulsion.

2.6.3 Public health (Article 29)

The transposition of Article 29 of the Directive has been done by Articles 40(1) of the FMA and 44(3)
of the IGD mainly incorrectly and incompletely.

• Article 29(1)

Both Article 40 of the FMA and paragraph (3) of Article 44 of the IGD give a prima faciae literal
transposition of Article 29(1), though transposition seems not to give a guarantee that health checks
can only be carried out during the first three months upon arrival. Nevertheless, Article 29(2) is
correctly transposed and sets forth that expulsion is not possible if the person contracts, could infect
with or carries the disease after three months upon arrival.

As regards the diseases that can be invoked to justify expulsion on the grounds of public health,
Decree 32/2007 (VI. 27) of the Minister of Health11 gives in its annex I. the list of contagious diseases
and diseases with epidemic potential as follows:
- tuberculosis
- HIV
- TPHA
- typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever
- hepatitis B

Decree 18/199812 foresees checks, specific treatment and follow-up procedures with regard to
Hungarian nationals and persons residing on the territory of Hungary if infected – amongst others – by
HIV, TPHA and typhoid fever. Decree 32/2007 (VI. 27.) lists the same diseases as contagious and
requiring treatment as Decree 18/2007.

There is a difference between Hungarian law and the relevant WHO instruments, which do not list
HIV, TPHA and typhoid fever, but the Decrees do. Hungary could rely on the fact that it treats
foreigners and Hungarians on an equal footing when it comes to contagious parasitic diseases and
even disregard the WHO list on this point. However, further medical explanation would be needed as
to whether listing HIV as infectious or contagious disease is justified or not.

11
Decree 32/2007 (VI. 27) of the Minister of Health on diseases endangering public health, with regard to the residence of
third country nationals and persons benefiting from the right of free movement
12
Decree 18/1998 (VI. 3.) of the Minister responsible for Public Good on the precautionary measures of contagious diseases
and diseases with an epidemic potential
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 54/69
Europa Institute
 • Article 29(2)

The FMA sets forth the conditions of application of public health measures and defines as the
exception the fact that the disease occurs three months after the entry. In this case, the expulsion
measure on grounds of public health is not justified.

According to the FMA, the person might be expelled if the disease occurs and if the person does not
undergo the compulsory treatment to this regard as defined in separate legislation. The separate
legislation referred to in the FMA is paragraph (3) of Article 44 of the IGD (quoted under 29.3). This
does not specify that the health check must be carried out only within the first three months after
arrival. With this, it seems that the second condition (compulsory treatment) does not have a fixed
time-frame.

• Article 29(3)

With regard to Article 29(3), Article 40(1) of the FMA and Article 44(3) of the IGD do not offer the
required guarantees on the following points:
- the transposition does not specify that medical examinations be free of charge;
- neither the FMA, nor the IGD excludes systematic medical checks;
- no time-frame is set for the carrying out of the checks (though indirect conformity could be deduced
from Article 40(1) of the FMA, which says that expulsion is not possible if the disease occurs after
three months, meaning that the check shall be carried out prior to this date).

2.6.4 Expulsion as a penalty or legal consequence (Article 33)

Article 33 of the Directive has been transposed by Articles 41(4) and 43 of the FMA. In addition,
Article 61 of the Criminal Code has been modified as well. Nevertheless, the transposition remains
incomplete and incorrect.

With regard to expulsion as a penalty, or legal consequence, the first comment to be made is that an
expulsion order may be permanent or for a specific term in Hungarian law.

Permanent expulsion may be imposed against any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for
ten years or more for
- a crime against the State or against humanity
- kidnapping
- trafficking in human beings
- acts of terrorism
- violation of international economic restrictions
- seizure of an aircraft, of any means of railway, water or road transport or of any means of
freight transport
- arms trafficking
- criminal misuse of narcotic drugs
- crimes committed in affiliation with organized crime
and whose presence in the country would significantly jeopardize public safety in view of the nature of
the act and the connections of the perpetrator (Article 61 of the Criminal Code).

Paragraph (3) of Article 61 of the Criminal Code sets forth a guarantee that a permanent residence ban
cannot be imposed on EEA nationals and family members as a result of their criminal activity. Thus,
permanent residence ban cannot be a conformity issue with regard to Article 33.1., since it is not
applicable to EEA nationals and their family members.

However, conformity with the Directive might not be met with regard to temporary entry and
residence bans. Although Article 43 of the FMA guarantees that a person having committed an offence
cannot be expelled if the judgement of the court did not foresee that consequence. However, Articles
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 55/69
Europa Institute
27 and 28 of the Directive are wrongly transposed in Hungarian law and Article 33 of the FMA is not
exhaustive as regards the definition of personal conduct that will serve as a basis for the judgement of
the court. The Criminal Code does not establish here the list of crimes leading to temporary expulsion
(which might be imposed upon EEA nationals and their family members as well). However, it flows
from the logic of the Criminal Code that persons whose presence is “not desirable” on the territory of
the Republic, might be expelled, on the basis of a court ruling in this case. (However, see comment
above on expulsion on indirectly economic grounds, based on the decision of the Office.) A court may
impose the expulsion order upon those who are sentenced for having committed a crime influencing a
fundamental interest of the society. The Criminal code does not seem to establish a closed list in this
regard, but leave it to the appreciation of the court.

The major difference between the transposing legislation and the wording of the Directive with regard
to Article 33(2) is that the FMA refers to cases where the expulsion order has already been executed
two years ago. But the Directive intends to cover cases where the expulsion order was taken two years
ago, and implementation comes after such period. There is no guarantee in the FMA or in the IGD that
would be conform to the Directive (i.e., those cases would be covered where the expulsion has not
been executed for two years, that is also impossible given the tight deadlines and quick deportation of
the persons concerned – see comment under Article 30(3) below).

There is conformity with Article 33(2) on this point, due to the cross-reference in the FMA. Article
41(4) of the FMA uses the wording, ‘existence of the circumstances justifying the expulsion’, whereas
this term is used and defined in Article 33 of the FMA (see above). This latter Article specifies the
criteria of representing a current and genuine threat to one of the fundamental interests of the State.

2.7 Procedural safeguards against decisions restricting free movement (Article 15,
and Articles 30-31)

2.7.1 Notifications of the decisions (Article 30)

• Article 30(1): notification in writing and comprehension

Paragraphs(1) And(2) of Article 30.:

The transposition of both paragraphs lacks conformity at some points. Article 71 of the FMA sets forth
that the general rule of notification is in written, but if the person is present, information shall also be
communicated orally in a language that he/she understands. However, there is no guarantee as regards
the information on the implications of the decision that is required by the paragraph.

• Article 30(2): information precise and in full

This paragraph is incorrectly transposed by Articles 44 and 61 a) of the FMA. Article 61 of the FMA,
transposing paragraph (2) of Article 30. They does not refer to the grounds of expulsion (the
Hungarian judicial system requires that the legal provision that forms the basis of the decision be
correctly included in any decision), but gives a closed list of the information to which the decision
needs to refer to (type and gravity of the offence, personal circumstances, such as age, family ties etc.).
The present wording of the FMA does not allow a “full and precise” understanding of the grounds of
expulsion in general, whereas the Directive exempts national authorities of the obligation of
information only in cases, where such information would be contrary to the interest of the State. When
the FMA adopts such approach, it reverses the logic of the Directive and uses the ‘exception’ as a
general rule.

• Article 30(3): information about appeal and time to leave the country

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 56/69
Europa Institute
The transposition of Article 30(3) needs to be divided into two parts. The first part is conformity
regarding the elements of notification that are the first guarantee in the text.

The FMA specifies in its Article 69 that information on legal remedy, compensation claims and means
of legal enforcement shall be communicated in a language that the person understands. The IGD
follows the same logic and adds specific information on the destination of deportation, the means of
transport to be used etc. Article 61 of the FMA specifies the content and necessary elements of the
expulsion order, such as the time limit of the entry and residence ban, the time limit to leave the
territory of Hungary, the border crossing point where the person needs to leave the country etc.

The second part of Article 30(3) lays down the other guarantee regarding the time-limit for leaving the
country. According to the directive, only “duly substantiated cases of urgency” might justify a time-
limit shorter than one month.

Hungarian legislation does not follow this general rule and treats all expulsions taken on grounds of
public policy as justifying urgency and so the general time-limit is 72 hours.

For example, how might the person (legally residing on one day) find himself/herself in deportation
custody the next day?

1) an expulsion measure can be ordered in there cases:

a) with regard to public health (Article 40(1) of the FMA);
b) if the residence right ceases (for example if the person no longer has the necessary means of
subsistence), the person concerned will have to leave the country by virtue of Article 15 of the
FMA, within three months. If he/she does not leave the territory of the Republic of Hungary,
than the Office for Immigration and Nationality will take a decision in which, expulsion will
be ordered, and pursuant to Article 41 of the FMA, an entry and residence will be
automatically imposed. (Its duration might vary from 1 to 5 years, whereas the duration will
need to be indicated in years.)
c) in case of criminal proceedings, where the court will order the expulsion as a penalty, or
part of the penalty.

2) Administrative redress is excluded by virtue of Article 46(2)-(3) of the FMA, if the expulsion is
ordered by the Office. Nevertheless, a revision by the court is possible, within 8 days. The court may
review and annul the expulsion measure.

3) Both the decision of the Office and the decision of the court will include a decision on deportation.
(Article 50(2) of the FMA)

4) No redress is possible against the deportation order. Objections may only be raised against the
method of deportation (Article 50(2)-(4) of the FMA). This objection might be raised in written,
within eight days following the execution of the deportation (Article 55(1) of the IGD).

5) Pursuant to Article 51 of the FMA, in order to ensure the implementation of the deportation, the
Office will order to take the person concerned in deportation custody that shall be done at the same
time as the decision is communicated to the person. The custody might last for maximum 72 hours.
Prolongation up to 30 days is possible by court decision, after 30 days, the custody shall cease.
Articles 57 – 59 of the IGD specify the content of the deportation custody order: the dates of
commencement and termination of detention and the place where it is to be executed, and it shall
specify whether any provisional measure applies or not.

6) Appeal or suspension of the procedure is excluded by Article 52 of the FMA; however, objection is
possible within 72 hours. If an objection is raised against the deportation custody, the competent local
court shall review the custody and shall rule immediately or at the latest, within 72 hours (at the same
time, prolonging the deportation custody). The person suffering deportation may raise an objection as
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 57/69
Europa Institute
well if he/she has not been informed of his/her rights and duties or if the custody is executed at an
inappropriate place (Articles 58 and 59 of the FMA). In case of this second type of objection, the
competent local court will rule within 8 days.

7) In its ruling, the court may (Article 53 of the FMA):

- prolonging the deportation custody (if the Office for Immigration and Nationality made a
proposal to this regard);
- order that the person be informed of his/her rights and duties;
- order the cessation of the custody.
Article 55(2) of the FMA excludes further objections if the court refused the objection with regard to
deportation custody.

8) Due to the fact that appeal is excluded, there shall be no reopening of the procedure or procedure on
grounds of fairness pursuant to Article 72 of the FMA.

It becomes clear from the above, that the requirement of the Directive, i.e., that the time allowed to
leave the territory might not be less, than one month from the date of notification is not met.
Deportations (based on expulsion orders) are carried out quickly, which, according to the spirit of the
Directive, would only be possible in duly substantiated cases of urgency. Currently this is not the case
and the exception is applied as the rule in Hungary. The only case when there is time to leave the
country applies to those whose residence right ended. But these persons are not subject to an expulsion
order, nor fall under the category, where public policy grounds could be invoked, thus Article 30(3)
does not cover these cases, but the procedure explained above. Inconformity is thus established.

2.7.2 Procedural safeguards under Article 31

• Article 31(1): right of appeal

This paragraph is ambiguously transposed by Articles 46(1)-(2) of the FMA; Article 55 of the IGD
and Articles 50(2)-(4); 52; 55(2); 72 of the FMA.

Article 46 of the FMA is clear on the fact that no redress is possible against expulsion and ban on
entry and residence, but the only redress possible is an objection against the execution of deportation,
once the deportation has been executed. Objection may be raised against deportation custody that will
be ruled by the competent local court immediately or within 8 days depending the nature of the
objection. If the court rejected the objection, no further objection can be made. Pursuant to Article 72
of the FMA, if appeal against the decision is ruled out by the FMA, there shall be no reopening of the
procedure or procedure on grounds of fairness. Furthermore, there shall be no right of appeal against
judgments made in the first instance by a competent authority in the second instance.

Theses rules are undoubtedly restrictive and do not seem to offer a procedural guarantee for the
persons falling under an expulsion measure.

• Article 31(2): interim orders

With regard to the transposition of this paragraph, Article 54(4) and Article 55 of the IGD, and
Articles 48(4) and 34(1) of the FMA remain ambiguous.
Deportation cannot take place without decision of the Office for Immigration and Nationality, or
before obtaining the decision of the court according to comments under Article 31(1).

Objections might be raised once the deportation was carried out, and suspension of the procedure is
only possible when the enforcing judge intervenes. This happens pursuant to Article 48(4) if he
controls whether the conditions of redirection in the country of origin are possible (principle of non-
refoulement).

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 58/69
Europa Institute
Interim measures might be ordered, when the person is taken in deportation custody, pursuant to
Article 57(1) of the IGD.

The problem of conformity is due to the fact that, the implementation of the decision order is not made
conditional upon interim measures, but is executed within 72 hours (with a possible prolongation up to
30 days by the court), furthermore, judicial review and redress are extremely limited, thus the
currently system does not satisfy the requirement of the Directive, that the person might not be
removed from the territory before he/she had access to judicial review and an expulsion order is not
necessarily the result of a court ruling, but might be decided by the Office as well, where no appeal,
but an objection can be raised. With such restrictive approach, the Hungarian legislation goes against
the spirit and the aims of the Directive.

• Article 31(3): examination of law and fact

There is no directly corresponding measure in the transposing legislation to this paragraph. The
examination of legality of the decision, the facts and circumstances of a decision flows only from the
general rule of legal remedies.

The transposition is incorrect with regard to proportionality, that can be questioned following the case
for example of an EEA national, who no longer fulfils the residence criteria, who fails to leave the
country within three months and against whom an expulsion order will be taken (together with an
entry and residence ban). The expulsion will be carried out in the form of deportation, preceded by
deportation order – where objection against the method of the enforcement will only be possible, once
the deportation was implemented. The Hungarian system of sanctions is disproportionate and does not
allow the judicial review at all stages.

• Article 31(4): exclusion and rights of defence

Transposition by paragraph (2) of Article 45 of the FMA, paragraph (2) of Article 46 of the FMA and
Article 47 of the IGD remains ambigous. As a general rule, the Directive foresees that the CA might
authorise the re-entry of the person subject to expulsion order, in order to enable the person to appear
in front of the court and to ensure the defence in person.

Pursuant to Articles 45(2) and 46(2) of the FMA, it is ambiguous, whether the court may decide the
necessity of the defence in person, or whether the person must be heard by virtue of the law. Article
46(2) says, the “if the court should…enable the individual”, while Article 46(2) is more stringent:
“must also be heard”. Given the fact that appearance is not excluded by the FMA in cases, where
“appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security” (see Directive), it is more
probable that the courts will rather allow the person to present their defence in person. The second part
of the exception put forward by the Directive is also not applicable, since paragraph (1) of Article 47
of the IGD declares that the person (subject to entry and residence ban) might also be granted a single
entry not exceeding three months – which does not affect the validity of the expulsion – if ‘special
circumstances’ justify it. However, a further ambiguous element is the interpretation of “special
circumstances”, which has not yet been interpreted by judicial practice in this context.

2.7.3 Exclusion orders (Article 32)

• Article 32(1)

The general rule, as laid down by Article 41(1)-(2) of the FMA is that the duration of entry and
residence ban lasts a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years, whereas the duration of the
ban needs to be defined in years. Application for the lifting of the ban is possible after one year
elapsed since the implementation of the expulsion, but only in case if there was a severe change in the
applicant’s health. This is a very restrictive interpretation of the Directive, because the Directive

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 59/69
Europa Institute
intends to allow the person to invoke any kind of material change in the circumstances, and not only in
his/her health.
The second inconformity issue here is with regard to the requirement “and in any event, after three
years”, to which, there is no reference in the transposition.

As seen before, that application for annulment of the entry and residence ban is only possible after one
year if the health status of the person concerned changed dramatically, and the FMA stays tacit on
other persons’ right to have their case re-assessed. Given the fact that the maximum ban pursuant to
the FMA is five years, it might be possible that the person cannot return to the country (with the
exception of a single entry and stay not exceeding three months, if the person manages to prove
“special circumstances”, pursuant to Article 47(1) of the FMA) and have his/her case re-examined
before the five years have elapsed. This is contrary to the purpose of the Directive and the provisions
of Article 32.1.

With regard to the second subparagraph of Article 32(1), the law prescribes three months for taking
the decision, which corresponds to the general deadline of administrative procedures in Hungary and
thus, the FMA is more favourable to what the Directive prescribes.

• Article 32(2)

Transposition is more favourable with regard to Article 32(2). Article 61 of the Criminal Code
foresees a ban on entry only for the time of the duration of the expulsion. Nevertheless, the IGD opens
a possibility for re-entry under special circumstances. The re-entry can not last longer than three
months and does not affect the validity of the ban.

2.8 Final provisions (Chapter VII)

2.8.1 Publicity (Article 34)

The current text of the FMA does not foresee any obligation for the government to disseminate
information; whereas the proposal of the Act does so. Despite the lack of a legally binding clause in
the transposing legislation, information regarding the administrative formalities and the entitlement to
residence right is available on the home-page of the Office for Immigration and Nationality.13
Furthermore, as regards procedural safeguards, an independent body has been set up as of 25th
February 2008 in charge of controlling the actions of the Police to which anyone can address himself
if claiming an alleged violation of his rights. (The Police are responsible for the execution of expulsion
and deportation.) Publicity is also ensured with regard to the right of EEA nationals’ and third country
national family members’ right to take up employment, the local branches of the National
Employment Office offer information free of charge, which can also be downloaded from their home
page.14

2.8.2 Abuse of rights (Article 35)

Article 35 has been incompletely or ambiguously transposed by paragraph (2) of Article 14, point b)
and paragraph (2) of Article 40 of the FMA. Transposition of Article 35 is ambiguous as regards the
sanctioning of fraudulent practices, however it conforms as regards marriages of convenience. Article
14 of the FMA establishes the presumption that a marriage was contracted as marriage of convenience
if it is dissolved within six months. The consequence attached to marriages of convenience is the
termination of residence right, which is in line with the requirements of the Directive.

Article 40 of the FMA sanctions the fraudulent practices by which a person acquired the right of
residence. For example, if the person does not have the right of entry or residence but who has

13
[Link]
14
[Link]
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 60/69
Europa Institute
nevertheless provided false information or given false information in order to verify a right of entry or
residence. In this case, the sanction is refusal and termination of residence, which results in expulsion.

To this regard, it is questionable whether the FMA satisfies the proportionality criterion imposed by
the Directive, especially, if the whole procedure of expulsion (see comment under Article 30(3)) and
the fact that procedural safeguards are not correctly applied by Hungary (see comment under 31(1))
are taken into account.

2.8.3 Sanctions (Article 36)

Article 36 allows Member States to impose effective and proportionate sanctions if beneficiaries of the
right of free movement fail to observe national rules. Measures adopted under Hungarian law can be
seen as effective, but their adequate and proportional nature is questionable. As regards the general
sanction for non-compliance with the obligation of notification, supply of data and registration, Article
31(1) of Government Decree 218/1999. (XII. 28) imposes a fine of 50.000 HUF (cc. 190 Euros). This
Article applies irrespective of the nationality of the person committing the offence. The equal
treatment criterion is met, though the proportionality is not: the same fines apply to those who
voluntarily fake a document or impede the control of the relevant authority than to those who only fail
to register.

The other sanction which seems to be disproportionate is linked to paragraphs (2)-(4) of Article 15 of
the FMA which sets forth that EEA nationals and third country family members shall leave the
country within three months from the termination of their residence right. Article 40(2) of the FMA
(defining the sanction) sets forth that the person who fails to fulfil the obligation of leaving the country
might be expelled from Hungary. The expulsion procedure restricts the revision of such decisions and
the persons will be deported within 72 hours (or if a court prologues the deportation custody, within
maximum 30 days). This is certainly a disproportionate sanction attached to the fact of no longer
fulfilling the residence criteria due to for example economic reasons (and is also contrary to Article
27.1. ).

The notification requirement set forth by Article 36 was not met by 30th April 2006 given the fact,
that Hungary only transposed Directive 2004/38 as of 1st July 2007.

2.8.4 More favourable provisions (Article 37)

The conformity issue with regard to Article 37 is that there is no general rule in the FMA stating that
the rules laid down therein do not affect more favourable dispositions set forth by other legal
documents. This would (and is supposed to) offer a guarantee against the principle “lex specialis
derogat lex generalis”, the FMA being the lex specialis and other laws granting any kind of
entitlement, the lex generalis.

There are also a number of more favourable provisions in the transposing legislation itself. Most of
such preferential treatment is due to Act CXL of 2004 on the General rules of Administrative
proceedings and Services. As a general rule, this setsa three month time-limit for administrative
proceedings that also apply to the Office of Immigration and Nationality.

Other preferential provisions are listed at each Articles of the Directive in the present study.

2.8.5 Transposition (Article 40)

Transposition of Directive 2004/38 was late in Hungary, as the FMA and other transposing legislation
only entered into force on 1st July 2007. As of 1st July 2007, laws and decrees that are linked to the
benefits or the beneficiaries of the FMA have been modified in order to ensure compliance with the
Directive (that is expressly mentioned in all modified legislation). The list of the modified legislation
can be found below in Annex II.
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 61/69
Europa Institute
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Act I of 2007 on the entry and residence of persons having the right to move and reside freely

Government Decree 113/2007 (V. 24) on the implementation of the FMA

Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement 25/2007 (V. 31.) on the implementation of the
FMA and the Act II. of 2007 on the entry and residence of third country nationals

Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement 28/2007 (V. 31.) on the procedural tariffs of
the procedures on the entry and residence of persons benefiting from the free movement right and of
third country nationals

Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code

Government Decree 218/1999 (XII. 28) on certain offences

Case 21.K.30706/2008/7 of 16th April 2008, High Court of Budapest

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 62/69
Europa Institute
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 63/69
Europa Institute
ANNEX I: Table of concordance for Directive 2004/38/EC

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 64/69
Europa Institute
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 65/69
Europa Institute
ANNEX II: Compliance with Article 24(1)

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 66/69
Europa Institute
ANNEX III: List of relevant national legislation and administrative acts

Act I of 2007 on the entry and residence of persons having the right to move and reside freely /a
szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló
2007. évi I. törvény/
Act CXIV of 2006 amending certain acts on vocational training and adult education /egyes
szakképzési és felnőttképzési tárgyú törvények módosításáról szóló 2006. évi CXIV. törvény/
Government Decree 113/2007 (V. 24) on the implementation of the FMA /a szabad mozgás és
tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I. törvény
végrehajtásáról szóló 113/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet/
Government Decree 115/2007 (V. 24) modifying certain Government Decrees in relation with the
FMA and Act II. Of 2007 on the entry and residence of third country nationals /a szabad mozgás
és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007. évi I.
törvénnyel, valamint a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló 2007.
évi II. törvénnyel összefüggő egyes kormányrendeletek módosításáról szóló 115/2007. (V. 24.) Korm.
rendelet/
Government Decree 38/2007 (III. 7.) on the modification of Government Decree 152/2005 (VIII.
2.) on Scholarship Programme ‘Útravaló’ /az Útravaló Ösztöndíjprogramról szóló 152/2005. (VIII.
2.) Korm. rendelet módosításáról szóló 38/2007. (III. 7.) Korm. rendelet/
Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement 25/2007 (V. 31.) on the implementation
of the FMA and the Act II. of 2007 on the entry and residence of third country nationals /a
szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról szóló
2007. évi I. törvény, valamint a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról
szóló 2007. évi II. törvény végrehajtásáról szóló 25/2007. (V. 31.) IRM rendelet/
Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement 28/2007 (V. 31.) on the procedural tariffs
of the procedures on the entry and residence of persons benefiting from the free movement right
and of third country nationals /a szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogával rendelkező személyek,
valamint a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok beutazásával és tartózkodásával kapcsolatos eljárások
díjáról 28/2007. (V. 31.) IRM rendelet/
Government Decree 387/2007. (XII. 23.) on the social supplies of persons whose health is
damaged /387/2007. (XII. 23.) Korm. rendelet az egészségkárosodott személyek szociális
járadékairól/
Government Decree 339/2007. (XII. 15.) on the modification of some Government Decrees on
social issues /339/2007. (XII. 15.) Korm. rendelet egyes szociális tárgyú kormányrendeletek
módosításáról/
Government Decree 391/2007. (XII. 23.) modifying Government Decree 12/2001 (I. 31) on State
subsidy for housing /a lakáscélú állami támogatásokról szóló 12/2001. (I. 31.) Korm. rendelet/
Act XII of 1998 on travelling abroad /A külföldre utazásról szóló 1998. évi XII. Törvény/

The following acts have been modified with regard to Article 40. of the Directive:
- Act II of 1989 on the Freedom of Association
- Act III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly
- Act on XCIII of 1990 on the fees
- Act IV of 1991 on the Promotion of Employment and Benefits to the Unemployed
- Act XXIII of 1992 on the Legal Status of Civil Servants
- Act LXVI of 1992 on the registration of address and personal data of citizens
- Act LXXIX of 1992 on the Protection of Foetal Life
- Act III of 1993 on Social Administration and Social Assistance
- Act LXXIX of 1993 on Public Education
- Act LXXX of 1994 on the Status of Public Prosecutors and their Data Management
- Act XXXII of 1995 on Patent Lawyers
- Act LVIII of 1996 on Professional Chambers for Design and Expert Engineers and Architects
- Act XXXI of 1997 on Child Protection and Custody Administration
- Act LXVIII of 1997 on the Employment of Judicial Workers
- Act LXXVIII of 1997 on the Formation and Protection of the Built Environment
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 67/69
Europa Institute
- Act LXXX of 1997 on Persons Entitled to Social Security Provision and Private Pensions and on
Funding These Services
- Act CLIX of 1997 on Armed Security Guards and Environmental Protection and Rural Guards
- Act XI of 1998 on Lawyers
- Act XXVI of 1998 on the Rights of and Equal Opportunities for Disabled Persons
- Act LXXXIV of 1998 on Family Support
- Act C of 2001 on the Recognition of Foreign Certificates and Degrees
- Act LXXX of 2003 on Legal Aid
- Act II of 2004 on Motion Pictures
- Act LXXVIII of 2005 on the Organisation, Tasks, Powers and Procedures of the National
Accreditation Agency
- Act CXXXIII of 2005 on the Rules of Personal and Property Protection Activities and Private
Investigation
- Act CXXXIX of 2005 on Higher Education
- Act CI of 2001 on Adult Education
- Act CXIV of 2006 amending certain acts on vocational training and adult education
- Government Decree 115/2007 (V. 24) modifying certain Government Decrees in relation with the
FMA and Act II. Of 2007 on the entry and residence of third country nationals
- Government Decree 146/1993 (X. 26.) on the implementation of Act LXVI of 1992 on the
registration of address and personal data of citizens
- Government Decree 35/1995 (IV. 5) on Fairs and markets
- Government Decree 113/1998 (VI. 10) on the authorisation by the competent building authority, the
actuation and the control of elevators and escalators and on the inspectors
- Government decree 125/1999 (VIII. 6.) on the central trainee system organised for students
participating in medical higher studies
- Government Decree 188/1999 (XII. 16.) on the authorisation of Social institutes offering personal
care and domestic care service in villages and on the authorisation of social entrepreneurship
- Government Decree 141/2000 (VIII. 9.) on the qualification and review of serious disability and on
the rules of granting disability allowances
- Government Decree 93/2002 (V. 5.) on the registering of accountants
- Government Decree 254/2002 (XII. 13) on the rules of usage, trusteeship and fund registry of the
National Agricultural Land Fund
- Government Decree 259/2002 (XII. 18) on the authorization of activities for child protection, child
well being and on the certificate for self-employed for activities of child protection
- Government decree 90/2004 (IV. 25) on the rules of using territorial and regional provisions
- Government Decree 179/2005 (IX. 9.) on public agents
- Government Decree 104/2006 (IV. 28) on the planning of localities, architectural and technical
planning and on the rules of entitlement for becoming technical expert in the building sector
- Government Decree 244/2006 (XII. 5) on the rules of exercising the activities of technical inspector
in the building sector and of responsible technical director
- Government Decree 85/2007 (IV. 25) on travel reductions in public passenger transport
- Government Decree (152/2005 (VIII. 2.) on the Study grant programme “Útravaló”
- Government Decree 38/2007 (III. 7.) on the modification of Government Decree 152/2005 (VIII. 2.)
on Scholarship Programme ‘Útravaló’
- Government Decree 9/1976 (IX. 5.) on the experts participating in the expropriation procedure
- Decree of the Minister of Justice and Law enforcement 25/2007 (V. 31.) on the implementation of
the FMA and the Act II. Of 2007 on the entry and residence of third country nationals
- Government Decree 22/2006 (IV. 25) on the rules governing the activities of human- and values
protection and private detectives

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 68/69
Europa Institute
ANNEX IV: Selected national case law

The conformity check revealed one court judgement, where the court based its decision on the FMA.
Given the late transposition of the Directive (1st July 2007) and the general length of court proceedings
in Hungary, it is understandable, that judicial practice is not yet well developed on that subject.

The first judgement has been rendered on 16th April 2008 in case 21.K.30706/2008/7 by the High
Court of Budapest in a case opposing the applicant to the Office for Immigration and Nationality.

The applicant (who is a national of the European Union) arrived to Hungary in February 2004 with the
mother, since when, applications for refugee status were made eight times. Following each
applications, the CA rejected the claim on grounds that the person was unable to clearly define the
grounds which would justify the non-return in the country of origin. At the time of the eighth
application, the Office for Immigration and Nationality rejected the demand by recalling that:
- the application for refugee status lacked objective grounds,
- the EU Member State in question where the applicant was from qualifies as a
democratic State.
Neither the Geneva Convention of 1951 on the right of refugees, nor Article 34(1) of the FMA was
applicable, this latter excluding the refoulement into a country, where the person might suffer
persecution or harassment.

Concluding this, the court upheld the decision of the Office, which rejected the application for refugee
status and ordered the expulsion of the applicant. Further appeal in the case was excluded pursuant to
the law on the Right of refugees. (NB: it would have been also excluded on the basis of the FMA.)

Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Hungary 2008 69/69
Europa Institute