CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sAF6D6C7B { width:125.4%; border-collapse:collapse } .s96913B96 { width:7.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6BD57774 { width:23.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9B62CB20 { width:10.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5AE2D91 { width:15.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9AF5B890 { width:23.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4875EBFF { width:7.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC0AA111 { width:23.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3FB26BC5 { width:10.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8231963 { width:15.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s260E741B { width:23.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 July 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48302/21 Orhan DEMIRCI and Others against Hungary lodged on 22 September 2021 communicated on 13 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is the husband, the second applicant is his wife, and the third applicant is their daughter (for details see the appended table). The application concerns the expulsion of the first applicant from Hungary to Türkiye. The first applicant arrived in Hungary in 1990 and married the second applicant in 1994; their daughter was born in 1995. On 30 June 2000 he was issued an immigration permit ( bevándorlási engedély ). In 2010 the first applicant was granted permanent resident status ( állandó tartózkodás) and issued a permanent resident card valid for 10 years, that is until 4   August   2020. On 21 March 2014 he was convicted of causing serious bodily harm and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. On 5 August 2020, due to changes in the legislation and the expiry of his permanent resident card, the first applicant applied for a national settlement permit ( nemzeti letelepedési engedély ). On 30 November 2020 the Constitution Protection Office ( Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal ) issued a report stating that the first applicant represented a threat to national security and that a ban on entry and stay should be imposed in respect of him for a period of five years. Based on the report, the National   Directorate-General for Aliens Policing ( Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, hereinafter “OIF”) dismissed the first applicant’s request for a national settlement permit. Following the recommendation of the Constitution Protection Office, the OIF initiated expulsion proceedings and ordered the first applicant’s expulsion on 20   January 2021. The first applicant’s request to access the classified report of the Constitution Protection Office was dismissed on 9 February 2021. The expulsion order was upheld by the Budapest High Court on 19   February 2021. The court noted that OIF could not divert from the recommendation of the Constitution Protection Office and had no discretion to decide on the first applicant’s expulsion. The constitutional complaint lodged by the first applicant was dismissed on 19 October 2021. The applicants complain that the first applicant’s expulsion from Hungary and the ensuing separation of their family entailed a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention, and that they had no effective remedies in this respect, as provided for in Article 13. The first applicant further complained of the fact that he had been expelled from Hungary without having been afforded the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with all of the applicants’ right to respect for their 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? In particular, were the domestic proceedings concerning the first applicant’s expulsion attended by sufficient procedural guarantees?   2.     Did the applicants 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 (see   De Souza Ribeiro v. France   [GC], no.   22689/07, § 83, ECHR 2012)?   3. Was the first applicant an “alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   7? If so, did the decision to expel the first applicant, comply with the procedural requirements of Article   1 § 1 of Protocol No.   7? Or did the exception under Article 1 § 2 of Protocol No. 7 apply?   APPENDIX   List of applicants       No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence Representative 1. Orhan DEMIRCI 1953 Turkish Antalya Barbara Pohárnok 2. Margit DEMIRCI 1966 Hungarian Szigetszentmiklós Barbara Pohárnok 3. Nadire DEMIRCI 1995 Hungarian Szigetszentmiklós Barbara Pohárnok