Hungary / Supreme Court / 3/2025. JEH – Jpe.III.60.053/2024/12
Povelja o temeljnim pravima Europske unije
-
Hungary / Supreme Court / 3/2025. JEH – Jpe.III.60.053/2024/12
Key facts of the case:
Several administrative and judicial proceedings in Hungary concerned third-country nationals whose national permanent residence permits were refused or withdrawn on the basis of classified national-security information. The applicants and their lawyers were denied access to the evidence underlying the risk assessment, being informed only that the persons posed a “national security threat”. Hungarian courts had generally held that it was sufficient for fair-trial purposes if the judge had full access to the classified material, even when the parties themselves could not see its substance. After the Court of Justice of the EU delivered its judgment in NW v Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Others (NW-PQ), in which it interpreted Article 47 of the Charter in the context of residence-right decisions based on confidential information, Hungarian lower courts raised doubts as to whether the earlier Kúria approach remained compatible with EU law. The Kúria’s Panel for Uniformity Complaint was seized to resolve contradictions between different panels regarding (1) the extent to which immigration and security authorities must disclose the “essence” of the reasons for their decisions to the person concerned, and (2) whether earlier Kúria decisions, which treated judicial access alone as sufficient, could still be followed after NW-PQ. The case thus sits at the intersection of immigration law, national security, and fundamental procedural rights under Article 47 of the Charter (effective remedy and fair trial) and Article 8 ECHR (private and family life).
Key legal question raised by the court:
Whether, in immigration cases governed by EU law and national-security considerations, Hungarian authorities and courts may satisfy the Charter Article 47 requirement of an effective remedy by limiting disclosure of the national-security evidence exclusively to the judge, or whether the essence of the reasons and evidence must also be made accessible to the individual or their representative, in line with NW-PQ and the Charter.
Outcome of the case:
The Kúria held that earlier domestic case-law, which considered purely judicial access to classified material sufficient for fair-trial purposes, is incompatible with the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter as interpreted by the Court of Justice. The Panel concluded that, whenever Hungarian authorities apply EU law in immigration cases involving possible derivative residence rights of family members of EU citizens (EUMSZ 20 and the Residence Directive), the immigration authority and the national-security expert authority are obliged to ensure that the person concerned (or their lawyer) can access at least the “essential considerations” of the reasons for the decision. A mere assurance that the judge has seen the file does not suffice. If the person has been unjustifiably denied access, the information that remained withheld cannot be used against them in court, and the impugned administrative decision must, in principle, be annulled. The Kúria thus changed its uniform interpretation, instructing lower courts to apply Hungarian legislation related to asylum and immigration in conformity with Article 47 Charter standards and NW-PQ.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
4. In his statement of claim, the claimant sought the annulment of the defendant authority’s decision — extending also to the first-instance decision — and requested that the first-instance authority be ordered to conduct a new procedure. In his amended claim, he also requested the annulment of the specialist authority’s opinion, referring inter alia to the judgment of the CJEU in case C-159/21 (GM). In his statement of claim, he argued, on the one hand, that the specialist authority’s opinion contained no substantive reasoning whatsoever; that the authorities adopted their decisions without knowing the case file; that he was not allowed to know even the essence of the classified documents on which the specialist authority’s opinion was based; and that this could not be remedied by the court’s access to the classified documents either. On the other hand, he submitted that the first defendant had failed to take into account that, by reference to his life partner and children, he was entitled to a derivative right of residence. He relied on Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter: the Charter) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR), as well as on the Kúria’s practice concerning access to classified information, according to which, in judicial review of an administrative decision rejecting a request for access to classified data, the court must apply exclusively the provisions of Act CLV of 2009 on the Protection of Classified Information (Mavtv.); “extraction” of information and access to the essential reasons underlying the national-security risk are not permitted.
...
10. By contrast, the CJEU in the NW-PQ judgment held that the general principle of good administration and Article 47 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 20 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation under which the essence of the reasons underlying decisions based on national-security risk is not disclosed to the third-country national invoking a derivative right of residence, or to his representative, and under which such information cannot otherwise be used in administrative or judicial proceedings to which they have access. A real divergence therefore exists between the NW-PQ judgment and the Kúria’s established practice in proceedings brought against immigration-authority decisions adopted in national permanent-residence procedures, concerning whether the party or his representative may access the data underlying specialist authority opinions. This divergence can only be resolved if the Kúria departs, on a point of law, from its earlier decisions.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
4. A felperes keresetében az alperes határozatának az elsőfokú határozatra is kiterjedő megsemmisítését és az elsőfokú hatóság új eljárásra kötelezését, keresetváltoztatásában pedig a szakhatósági állásfoglalás megsemmisítését is kérte, többek között az EUB C-159/21. (GM) számú ügyben hozott ítéletre hivatkozással. Keresetlevelében egyrészt azt sérelmezte, hogy a szakhatóság véleménye semmilyen érdemi indokolást nem tartalmazott, a hatóságok az iratok ismerete nélkül hoztak döntést, nem ismerhette meg a szakhatósági állásfoglalás alapjául szolgáló minősített iratoknak legalább a lényegét, és mindezt az sem orvosolhatja, ha a bíróság megismeri a minősített irat tartalmát, másrészt azt, hogy az I. rendű alperes nem vette figyelembe, hogy élettársára és gyermekeire tekintettel származékos tartózkodási jog illeti meg. Hivatkozott az Alapjogi Charta (a továbbiakban: Charta) 41. és 47. cikkére és az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezménye (a továbbiakban: EJEE) 8. cikkére, továbbá a Kúria minősített adatok megismerésével kapcsolatos gyakorlatára, amely szerint a minősített adat megismerése iránti kérelmet elutasító közigazgatási határozatot felülvizsgáló bíróság eljárására kizárólag a minősített adat védelméről szóló 2009. évi CLV. törvény (a továbbiakban: Mavtv.) rendelkezéseit kell alkalmazni, nem kerülhet sor „kivonatolásra”, a nemzetbiztonsági veszélyt megalapozó lényegi okok megismerésére.
...
10. Az EUB NW-PQ ítélete ezzel szemben úgy foglalt állást, hogy a megfelelő ügyintézés általános elvét és az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartája 47. cikkét az EUMSZ 20. cikkel összefüggésben úgy kell értelmezni, hogy azokkal ellentétes az azt előíró nemzeti szabályozás, amely szerint a származékos tartózkodási jogra hivatkozó harmadik országbeli állampolgárral vagy képviselőjével a nemzetbiztonsági kockázaton alapuló határozatokat alátámasztó indokok lényegét sem közlik, és közigazgatási vagy bírósági eljárásokban egyébként sem használhatják fel azokat az információkat, amelyekhez hozzáférhettek. Az NW-PQ ítélet és a Kúria nemzeti letelepedési engedélyezési eljárásokban hozott idegenrendészeti hatósági döntésekkel szemben indult eljárásokban kialakult gyakorlata közötti ellentét a szakhatósági állásfoglalások alapjául szolgáló adatok fél, illetve képviselője általi megismerhetősége tekintetében valóságos eltérés mutatkozik, amely kizárólag úgy oldható fel, ha a Kúria korábbi határozataitól jogkérdésben eltér.