The European Union is taking the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to court because the three members refused to accommodate their alloted share of migrants under a plan agreed to by the 28-country bloc.
Brussels announced in September 2015 that a 160 000 migrants stranded in Italy and Greece, already struggling with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants that year, would be relocated to other EU members. The decision was forced through despite the objections of four member states.
But the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have refused to take in great numbers over the last two years. The EU’s executive Commission has sought reasons for their refusal, but maintain that it has been given no “satisfactory explanations” Fox News reported.
The Commission has escalated its legal action against the governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic Their cases are now being referred to the European Court of Justice.
It announced on Thursday that the three “remain in breach of their legal obligations” and have not been forthcoming in pledging assistance.
“The replies received were again found not satisfactory and three countries have given no indication that they will contribute to the implementation of the relocation decision”, the Commission stated.
Since the quotas were introduced, Hungary has not participated in relocation, Poland has made no plegde since December 2015, while the Czech Republic has not relocated anyone since last August.
Earlier this year, the ECJ dismissed Hungary and Slovakia’s complaints that the quota system was illegal.
The ECJ, the EU’s highest court, has launched two other controversial legal matters against Hungary: its higher education law against a Soros institution as well as its law on foreign-funded NGOs, also aimed at Soros-funded meddling.
The Commission’s legal proceedings over Hungary’s asylum law came after they issued a formal request for Budapest to comply with EU law. It said Budapest’s response to a Commission letter expressing concerns about the law was “found to be unsatisfactory as it failed to address the majority of the concerns”.