Published on 3 August 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 14953/26
D.T.
against Hungary
lodged on 26 March 2026
communicated on 30 June 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 he has been residing in Hungary since 2007. His settlement permit was valid until 13 June 2024. He is married since 2013; his wife has an immigration permit. His two children have settlement permits.
On 12 August 2024 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 of 1 August 2024 holding that the applicant’s stay in Hungary posed a threat to national security. Subsequently, the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the NDGAP on second instance. Following the dismissal of his action by the Budapest High Court, 29 May 2025 the Kúria quashed the judgment and ordered the Budapest High Court to conduct new proceedings. In the resumed proceedings the Budapest High Court invited the public prosecutor to review the documents and act in the interest of the applicant. The applicant’s action was dismissed by the High Court on 12 November 2025. On 15 January 2026 the Kúria declared the applicant’s petition for review inadmissible.
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)?
2. 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?