Background
M.C., a Serbian national, had lived in Hungary since 2010 for work. In 2022, he applied to renew his employment residence permit. Although the immigration authority found that he met the ordinary conditions for residence, it refused the application and expelled him to Serbia after Hungary’s Constitution Protection Office concluded in a classified assessment that he posed a national-security threat.
The applicant and his lawyer were not allowed to see the classified material or given a summary of the allegations. The Debrecen High Court reviewed the classified documents and dismissed his challenge, holding that the existence of a national-security risk required refusal of the permit and left no scope to consider his personal circumstances. The Kúria declined to admit a further review application.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Hungary violated Article 8 of the Convention. The permit refusal and simultaneous expulsion interfered with M.C.’s private life. Although national-security information could be withheld, the applicant had received neither access to the material nor even an outline of the case against him, leaving him unable meaningfully to rebut it.
The domestic judicial review did not sufficiently counterbalance that limitation. The reviewing court had access to the confidential documents, but its review was formal because it did not explain the evidential basis for finding a national-security threat. Nor did the authorities weigh the applicant’s private-life interests against the asserted security concerns. The interference was therefore not shown to be necessary in a democratic society.
Key Takeaways
- Classified national-security allegations cannot eliminate meaningful procedural safeguards in immigration cases.
- A court’s confidential review must be substantive, not merely formal, where the affected person cannot see the evidence.
- Authorities must still assess and balance an individual’s private-life circumstances before expulsion.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s recent scrutiny of Hungary’s use of undisclosed national-security assessments in residence and expulsion decisions. National security may justify restrictions, but it does not dispense with effective judicial safeguards and an individualized Article 8 balancing exercise.
The Court awarded M.C. EUR 5,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.