Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Article 24 - The rights of the child
Key facts of the case:
The plaintiff is a Bangladeshi citizen with refugee status in Hungary. In 2016 the plaintiff and his family members (a wife and three children who remained in Bangladesh) submitted a request for a visa for entitlement to receive a residence permit and for a residence permit on the grounds of family reunification. Based on an expert opinion, the first instance immigration authority concluded that the applicants had submitted falsified documents relating to the existence of a family relationship with the minor applicant H.S. (one of the children of the plaintiff) and it therefore rejected the application on the grounds of false disclosure or untrue facts. The second instance authority rejected the applicants’ request for a DNA test to prove the existence of a family relationship and confirmed the first instance decision. The first instance court quashed the decisions of the first and the second instance authorities on the ground that the authorities violated the law when they restricted their examination to the expert opinion solely. The court pointed out that even if the submitted documents were false, the information may have been true and it was the duty of the authorities to carry out a thorough evidentiary procedure. The court ordered the first instance authority to conduct a new procedure and to take into consideration the best interests of the child. The judgment of the first instance court was challenged by the second instance authority before the Curia.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Whether attaching falsified documents to an application – regardless of the truthfulness of the information they contain – amounts to disclosing false information or untrue facts as a legal ground to refuse a request for a residence permit in terms of Article 18 (1) b) of Act no. II of 2017 on the admission and right of residence of third country nationals (2007. évi II.
törvény a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról[1]).
[1] Act no. II of 2017 on the admission and rights of residence of third country nationals (2007. évi II. törvény a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról) is available at: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=108621.357086
Outcome of the case:
The Curia rejected the petition of the second instance authority and upheld the decision of the first instance court. The Curia pointed out that based on Article 16 (2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification,[1] a distinction needed to be made between providing false or misleading information, false or falsified documents in the application process and the use of this information and documentation. The submission of a falsified document creates a presumption that the applicant provided false or falsified information. Nevertheless, this is a rebuttable presumption, i.e. the applicant has the right to prove that the information contained in the falsified document is in fact true. In the course of a family reunification process the existence of a family relationship may be proven by any adequate means and the authority must pay particular attention to the interests of the child if the case concerns a minor. In light of these considerations, the Curia concluded that the first instance authority had to conduct a new procedure and examine whether the submitted documents were suitable to prove the existence of a family relationship. If not, the applicant had to be granted the opportunity to prove the existence of a family relationship by any adequate means, including a DNA test. The authority had to take into consideration the best interests of the child.
[1] Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ 2003 L 251.
“[7] The [first instance court] in its judgment quashed the decisions of the first and second instance authorities and ordered the first instance authority to conduct a new procedure. In its reasoning the court referred to Articles Q) (2) and (3) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary,[1] Articles 18 (1) b) and 19 (3) of Act no. II of 2017 on the admission and right of residence of third country nationals,[2] Article 57 (2) of Government Decree no. 114/2007. (V.24.) on the implementation of Act no. II of 2017 on the admission and right of residence of third country nationals,[3] Article 339 (1) and 339/B of Act no. III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure,[4] points (8), (9) and (4) of the preamble and Article 16 (2) a) of the Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification,[5] Articles 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989 as promulgated by Act no. LXIV of 1991,[6] Articles 7, 24 (2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” (Please note that this is an excerpt from the summary of the judgment of the first instance court as formulated by the Curia. This is part of the judgment of the Curia but does not constitute an integral part of its own reasoning.)
“[10] The [first instance] court ordered the first instance authority to take into consideration [in the repeated process] primarily the Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In other words it had to pay particular attention to the best interests of the child and decide in favour of the child in case of doubt. The [repeated] procedure had to comply with Article 339/B of the CCP.” (Please note that this is an excerpt from the summary of the judgment of the first instance court as formulated by the Curia. This is part of the judgment of the Curia but does not constitute an integral part of its own reasoning.)
“[27] Article 7 of the [EU] Fundamental Rights Charter – as the Treaty of Lisbon has conferred binding force on it – and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights prescribe the duty of Member States to respect family life, which evidently implies the right of the spouses and their children to live together. Article 24 (3) of the Charter explicitly mentions this principle: every child has the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.”
“[28] According to Article 24 (2) of the [EU] Fundamental Rights Charter, in all actions relating to children the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.”
[1] Fundamental Law of Hungary (Magyarország Alaptörvénye), available at: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=140968.356003
[2] Act no. II of 2017 on the admission and right of residence of third country nationals (2007. évi II. törvény a harmadik országbeli állampolgárok beutazásáról és tartózkodásáról), available at: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=108621.357086
[3] Government Decree no. 114/2007. (V.24.) on the implementation of the Act no. II of 2017 on the admission and right of residence of third country nationals (114/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet a Harmtv. végrehajtásáról szóló), available at: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=111296.347939
[4] Act no. III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure (1953. évi III. törvény a polgári perrendtartásról), available at: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=305.331318.
[5] Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ 2003 L 251.
[6] Act no. LXIV of 1991 on the promulgation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989 in New York (1991. évi LXIV. törvény a Gyermek jogairól szóló, New Yorkban, 1989. November 20-án kelt Egyezmény kihirdetéséről), available at: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=15579.284771
’’[7] A közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság jogerős ítéletében az alperes határozatát az elsőfokú határozatra is kiterjedően hatályon kívül helyezte és az elsőfokú hatóságot új eljárás lefolytatására kötelezte. Az indokolásban felhívta az Alaptörvény Q) cikk (2), (3) bekezdéseit; a Harmtv. 18. § (1) bekezdés b) pontját, 19. § (3) bekezdését; a Harmtv. végrehajtásáról szóló 114/2007. (V. 24.) Korm. rendelet (a továbbiakban: Vhr.) 57. § (2) bekezdését; a polgári perrendtartásról szóló 1952. évi III. törvény (a továbbiakban: Pp.) 339. § (1) bekezdését, 339/B. §-át; a Tanácsnak a családegyesítési jogról szóló 2003/86/EK irányelve (a továbbiakban: Irányelv) preambulumának (8), (9), (14) bekezdéseit, 16. § (2) bekezdés a) pontját; az 1991. évi LXIV. törvénnyel kihirdetett, a gyermekek jogai-ról szóló New Yorkban 1989. november 20-án kelt egyezmény (a továbbiakban: Egyezmény) 3., 4., 7., 8. cikkeit; az Alapjogi Charta 7. cikkét, 24. cikk (2), (3) bekezdéseit és az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezménye 8. cikkét.”
’’[10] A bíróság az új eljárásra előírta, hogy annak során a hatóságnak elsődlegesen az Egyezményben, az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményében, valamint az Alapjogi Chartában foglaltakból kell kiindulnia, vagyis a kiskorú gyermek mindenekfeletti érdekét kell figyelembe vennie és kétség esetén a gyermek javára döntenie. Az eljárásnak meg kell felelnie a Pp. 339/B. §-ában foglaltaknak.”
“[27] A Lisszaboni Szerződés révén kötelező erővel felruházott Alapjogi Charta 7. cikke, ahogyan az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményének 8. cikke is, előírja a tagállamok számára a magánélet és a családi élet tiszteletben tartását, ami értelemszerűen azt is jelenti, hogy a házastársaknak és a gyermekeinek joguk van együtt élni. Az Alapjogi Charta 24. cikk (3) bekezdése ezt az elvet kifejezetten is tartalmazza: minden gyermeknek joga van ahhoz, hogy mindkét szülőjével rendszeres, személyes és közvetlen kapcsolatot tartson, kivéve, ha ez érdekeivel ellentétes.”
“[28] Alapjogi Charta 24. cikk (2) bekezdése értelmében a hatóságok gyermekekkel kapcsolatos tevékenységében a gyermek mindenek fölött álló érdekének kell az elsődleges szempontnak lennie.”
