Published on 6 January 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 10102/24
A.G.
against Hungary
lodged on 14 March 2024
communicated on 17 December 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the withdrawal of the applicant’s national settlement permit. The applicant, a Russian national, arrived in Hungary in 1995 accompanied by his wife and two minor children. The couple’s third child was born in Hungary in 2002. The entire family has been residing in Hungary ever since.
On 21 September 2021 the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, hereinafter “NDGAP”) revoked the applicant’s national settlement permit (nemzeti letelepedési engedély) and settlement status (letelepedett státusz). It relied on the opinion of the Constitution Protection Office (Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, hereinafter “CPO”), stating that the applicant represented a threat to national security. On 25 October 2022 the Budapest High Court quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the NDGAP.
In the resumed second instance administrative proceedings, the NDGAP upheld the first instance decision that revoked the applicant’s national settlement permit and settlement status on the basis of the CPO’s report. The applicant challenged the decision in court, but to no avail; on 1 June 2023 the Budapest High Court upheld the administrative decision. On 3 October 2023 the Kúria dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2023.
The applicant complains that the decisions of the Hungarian authorities and the ensuing separation of the family entails a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention. He further complains that he has no effective remedies in this respect, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, since he was not informed of the underlying evidence of the CPO opinion and therefore was unable to produce any relevant submissions in that regard during the proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the domestic proceedings attended by sufficient procedural guarantees (see Gaspar v. Russia, no. 23038/15, §§ 38 ss., 12 June 2018)?
 
2.  Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention?
 
3.  The parties are requested to submit copies of the documents pertaining to the applicant’s residence status and to the domestic immigration proceedings.