CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 32317/23 Miljazim CUNAJ against Hungary lodged on 24 July 2023 communicated on 11 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicant’s request for the prolongation of his residence permit for employment purposes and his expulsion from Hungary to Serbia. The applicant is a Serbian national and he had been residing in Hungary since 2010. On 22 February 2022 he filed a request for the prolongation of his residence permit for the purposes of employment. On 13 October 2022, in the resumed proceedings, the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing (hereinafter: “NDGAP”) dismissed his application and expelled him to Serbia. The decision relied on an expert opinion issued by the Constitution Protection Office ( Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal – hereinafter “the CPO”) stating that the applicant’s presence in Hungary constituted a risk to national security. The applicant’s request to access the classified report of the CPO was rejected on 11 November 2022. Following an unsuccessful appeal against the NDGAP’s decision, the applicant sought judicial review. On 5   April 2023 the Debrecen High Court dismissed his action and on 20   June 2023 the Kúria rejected his subsequent petition for judicial review. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that for want of any connection with his country of origin his expulsion violated his rights to respect for his private. He further complains that he was expelled without having been afforded sufficient procedural guarantees. He submits under Article 13 of the Convention that without having access to the grounds of the alleged national security risk he had no effective remedy against the expulsion decision. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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? 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 (see Gaspar v. Russia , no. 23038/15, §§ 38ss., 12   June 2018, Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary , no. 5488/22, §§ 53ss., 19   September 2024)?