Published on 18 May 2026
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 5603/26
K.H.
against Hungary
lodged on 23 January 2026
communicated on 27 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the revocation of the applicant’s national settlement permit and status on national security grounds.
The applicant is a Chinese citizen and has been residing in Hungary since 2000 with his wife and three minor children, including one with disability. On 24 October 2023 the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, hereinafter referred to as “NDGAP”) revoked the applicant’s national settlement permit and status by relying on the Constitution Protection Office’s (Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, hereinafter referred to as “CPO”) authoritative assessment holding that the applicant’s stay in Hungary posed a threat to national security. Subsequently, his appeal was rejected by the NDGAP on second instance. Following the dismissal of the applicant’s action by the Budapest High Court, on 8 April 2025 the Kúria quashed the judgment and ordered the Budapest High Court to conduct new proceedings. In accordance with the Kúria’s guidance, in the resumed court proceedings, the public prosecutor accessed the classified materials and confirmed that the applicant’s stay in Hungary threatened national security. Consequently, the Budapest High Court dismissed the applicant’s action finding that the impugned decision and the CPO’s authoritative assessment were lawful. On 30 September 2025 the Kúria declared the applicant’s petition for review inadmissible. Apparently, in the meantime, the applicant sought access to the classified documents in separate proceedings before the CPO, but to no avail.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the revocation of his national settlement permit, serving no legitimate ground and based on unclear grounds, as well as his foreseen expulsion infringes on his right to respect for his private and family life. By relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he complains that he had no effective remedy against the impugned measure as he had no cognizance of the underlying reasons and evidence as to the alleged national security ground. Therefore, his grievances could not be substantially reviewed in the judicial proceedings rendering these latter a pure formality.
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 (see Mirzoyan v. the Czech Republic, nos. 15117/21 and 15689/21, §§ 76-80, 16 May 2024)?
 
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 Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, §§ 72-73 and 77-80, 19 September 2024)? Furthermore, did the domestic courts carry out an appropriate balancing exercise among the interests at stake and did they justify the national security grounds upon the revocation of the applicant’s national settlement permit and status?
 
2.  The parties are requested to submit copies of the documents pertaining to the applicant’s residence status and to the domestic immigration proceedings.