5.  The applicants were born in 1990 and 1984 respectively. At the time of introducing the application, they lived in Budapest and Nyírbátor respectively. 6.  The applicants entered Hungary illegally and were intercepted and arrested by the police on 10 March 2009. On the next day their expulsion was ordered but suspended because of practical difficulties. Their detention under immigration law was ordered until 20 March, with a view to their eventual expulsion. However, on 18 March they applied for asylum, claiming that they were persecuted in their home country for being homosexual. 7.  The asylum proceedings started on 25 March and, on 9 April, the applicants were interviewed by the refugee authority, an agency belonging under the jurisdiction of the Office of Immigration and Nationality. On the same day their case was admitted to the in-merit phase. Under section 55(3) of the Asylum Act (see below in Chapter II), once a case reaches this stage, the alien administration authority (another agency of the Office of Immigration and Nationality) shall, at the initiative of the refugee authority, terminate the detention of the asylum-seeker. Nevertheless, the applicants’ detention continued. After another interview on 28 May, on 19 June their asylum requests were dismissed. The applicants’ action to challenge this decision in court was unsuccessful. 8.  Relying on section 55(3), the applicants’ lawyer then requested their release. However, since the refugee authority had not initiated their release, the request was denied by the alien administration authority. On 20 July 2009 the applicants’ lawyer requested judicial review of their detention. This motion was rejected by the Nyírbátor District Court on 19 August 2009 with the formal reasoning that since the refugee authority had not initiated the applicant’s release, the alien administration authority had been under no obligation to order their release and that therefore their detention was lawful. 9.  The applicants were released only on 10 September 2009, after the maximum period of detention in such cases had expired.