CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 }   Published on 25 September 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19376/23 L.P. against Hungary lodged on 9 May 2023 communicated on 8 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the expulsion of the applicant from Hungary to China. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives continuously in Hungary since 1995. He has two children, both Hungarian nationals, born in 1996 and 2000. In 2004 he has received a residence permit; and in 2009 he was issued a residence card. In 2011 he was granted a permanent residence status and issued a permanent resident card ( állandó tartózkodási kártya) valid until 10   March 2021. The validity of the card was prolonged due to the state of emergency declared during the pandemic. On 5 February 2021, prompted by changes in the legislation, the applicant applied for a national settlement permit ( nemzeti letelepedési engedély ). On 6 September 2021 the applicant’s request was dismissed by the final decision of the National   Directorate-General for Aliens Policing ( Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, hereinafter “OIF”) based on the report of the Constitution Protection Office ( Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal) stating that the applicant represented a threat to national security. On 6 October 2021 the applicant’s residence card was withdrawn on national security grounds. On 2 September 2021 the applicant lodged a request for a residence permit for the purpose of family reunification ( családi együttélés biztosítása célú tartózkodási engedély) . The Constitution Protection Office issued a new report, stating again that the applicant represented a threat to national security. Based on the report, the OIF dismissed the applicant’s request and ordered his expulsion to China. The decision was upheld on appeal on 4   March 2022. The applicant’s request for a judicial review of the administrative decision was to no avail and the expulsion order was upheld by the Budapest High Court on 15 November 2022. The petition for review lodged by the applicant was declared inadmissible by the Kúria on 2 March 2023. The applicant complains that his expulsion from Hungary and the ensuing separation of his family entailed a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention, and that he had no effective remedy in this respect, as provided for in Article 13. He further complains 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. QUESTION 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 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 applicant’s expulsion attended by sufficient procedural guarantees?   2.     Did the applicant 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 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 him 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?   4.     The parties are requested to submit copies of the documents pertaining to the applicant’s resident status.