Published on 26 September 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 5488/22
Elena TRAPITSYNA and Szofia ISAEVA
against Hungary
lodged on 14 January 2022
communicated on 9 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are Russian citizens. The application concerns the expulsion of the first applicant, Ms Trapitsyna from Hungary to Russia, together with the second applicant, Ms Isaeva, her daughter, due to the revocation of the first applicant’s immigration permit (bevándorlási engedély) on the basis of undisclosed information and the revocation of the second applicant’s settlement permit (letelepedési engedély).
The first applicant arrived in Hungary in 2000 and was issued an immigration permit on 10 February 2003, the validity of which was prolonged until 26 March 2024. The second applicant was born in Hungary in 2008 and received a settlement permit which was last prolonged on 8 September 2020 until 23 May 2023.
On 11 November 2020 the Constitution Protection Office (Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal) issued a report stating that the first applicant represented a threat to national security, that her immigration permit should be revoked, and that a ban on entry and stay should be imposed in respect of her.
On 10 December 2020 the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság) revoked the first applicant’s immigration permit and ordered her expulsion, together with a ban on her entry and stay for five years, referring to the above-mentioned recommendation. It also decided on the first applicant’s expulsion.
On the same day the Directorate-General revoked the second applicant’s settlement permit.
The administrative decision was upheld by the Budapest High Court on 10 February 2021. The constitutional complaint lodged by the first applicant was dismissed on 5 October 2021.
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to revoke their immigration and residence permits violated their right to respect for private and/or family life, as it deprived them of any legal basis to remain in Hungary. The decisions were based on secret documents to which they had no access and that, therefore, they had been denied the opportunity to refute the allegations.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private and/or family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Gaspar v. Russia, no. 23038/15, 12 June 2018)?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?