BRUSSELS: The European Union on Wednesday began the process of clawing back hundreds of millions of euros in funds meant to go Hungary after its ant-migrant government refused to pay a huge fine for breaking the bloc’s asylum rules.
In June, the EU’s top court ordered Hungary to pay 200 million euros ($223 million) for persistently depriving migrants of their right to apply for asylum. The court imposed an additional fine of 1 million euros for every day it failed to comply.
The European Court of Justice described Hungary’s actions as “an unprecedented and extremely serious infringement of EU law.” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán slammed its ruling as “outrageous and unacceptable.”
The EU’s executive branch, the European Commission, said that given Hungary’s failure to pay or provide information about its intentions, Brussels is “moving to what we call the off-setting procedure” by taking the money from common funds that would otherwise go to Budapest.
“So, what we are going to do now is to deduct the 200 million euro from upcoming payments from the EU budget toward Hungary,” commission spokesman Balazs Ujvari said. He said it would take time to identify which parts of Hungary’s funding could be deducted.
Ujvari said the commission has also sent a first payment request on the daily fines amounting to 93 million euros ($103 million) so far. “Counting from receipt, the Hungarian authorities will have 45 days to make that payment,” he said.
Hungary’s staunchly nationalist government has taken a hard line on people entering the country since well over 1 million people arrived in Europe in 2015, most of them fleeing conflict in Syria.
The case against it concerned changes Hungary made to its asylum system in the wake of that crisis, when some 400,000 people passed through Hungary on their way to Western Europe.
The government in Budapest ordered fences with razor wire to be erected on its southern borders with Serbia and Croatia and a pair of transit zones for holding asylum seekers to be set up on its border with Serbia. Those transit zones have since closed.
In 2020, the ECJ found that Hungary had restricted access to international protection, unlawfully detained asylum applicants, and failed to observe their right to stay while their applications were processed.
The transit zones were closed in 2020, shortly after that ruling.
But the commission, which is responsible for monitoring the 27 EU member states’ compliance with their shared laws, took the view that Budapest had still not complied and requested that the ECJ impose a fine.
After the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in 2020, the government also pushed through a law forcing asylum seekers to travel to Belgrade or Kyiv to apply for a travel permit at its embassies there before entering Hungary. Only once back could they file their applications.
People have the right to apply for asylum or other forms of international protection if they fear for their safety in their home countries or face the prospect of persecution based on their race, religion, ethnic background, gender or other discrimination.
Hungary refuses to pay fines for breaking EU asylum rules
https://arab.news/ykcnk
Hungary refuses to pay fines for breaking EU asylum rules
- The European Court of Justice described Hungary’s actions as “an unprecedented and extremely serious infringement of EU law”
- Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán slammed its ruling as “outrageous and unacceptable”
India fines IndiGo record $2.45 million over mass flight cancellations
- India’s largest airline scrapped about 4,500 flights in the first weeks of December
- India’s largest airline scrapped about 4,500 flights in the first weeks of December
NEW DELHI: India’s aviation regulator on Saturday fined IndiGo a record $2.45 million, issued warnings to senior executives and directed the airline to remove the head of its operations control from his duties after mass flight cancelations last month.
India’s largest airline scrapped about 4,500 flights in the first weeks of December, stranding tens of thousands of passengers nationwide and highlighting concerns over limited competition in the world’s fastest-growing aviation market.
The airline has acknowledged that poor pilot roster planning was the main cause of the disruption. A probe by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) found several deficiencies at the airline after stricter pilot rest and duty rules came into effect last year, the regulator said in a statement.
IndiGo, which holds 65 percent of India’s domestic market, failed to properly identify planning gaps or maintain adequate operational buffers, the DGCA said, adding that the airline had an “overriding focus” on maximizing the use of crew, aircraft, and network resources.
“(IndiGo’s) approach compromised roster integrity and adversely impacted operational resilience,” the DGCA said.
A government source said that the fine was the largest imposed by the authority to date, though it amounted to just 0.31 percent of IndiGo’s annual profit for fiscal 2024/25.
IndiGo said in a statement that its board and management were “committed to taking full cognizance of the orders and will, in a thoughtful and timely manner, take appropriate measures.”
The DGCA issued warnings to several senior executives, including Chief Operating Officer Isidre Porqueras and Jason Herter, senior vice president of the operations control center. It directed IndiGo to relieve Herter of his operational duties.
CEO Pieter Elbers received a “caution” for “inadequate overall oversight of flight operations and crisis management,” the regulator said.
IndiGo was also ordered to provide a bank guarantee of $5.51 million in favor of the DGCA to ensure “compliance with the directives and long-term systemic correction.”
The DGCA said the aviation ministry had also ordered an internal inquiry into the regulator’s own functioning. The cancelations prompted the government to temporarily relax some rules on night duties for pilots to help stabilize IndiGo’s operations, a move criticized by pilot unions and safety advocates. India’s competition regulator is reviewing allegations of antitrust violations by the two-decade-old airline.










