| Applicant name | TRAPITSYNA AND ISAEVA |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | Hungary |
| Application no. | 5488/22 |
| Date | 19/09/2024 |
| Judges | Ivana Jelić, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Lətif Hüseynov, Péter Paczolay, Gilberto Felici, Erik Wennerström, Raffaele Sabato |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; Relational privacy |
| Keywords | Procedural requirments implicit |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns the decision to expel the first applicant from Hungary on national security grounds, without reasons being given, and the ensuing revocation of the applicants’ immigration and settlement permits. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | In the Court’s view, the process entailed a significant interference with the first applicant’s right to be informed of the factual elements which had served as a basis for the domestic authorities’ decision to order her expulsion from Hungary. In this regard, the Court takes into account the fact that the first applicant sought access to the classified information in separate proceedings brought under the Classified Information Act, but this yielded no results, since, in the understanding of the domestic authorities, the disclosure of such information would have jeopardised the effective functioning of the CPO. As to the question whether the judicial review proceedings counterbalanced or mitigated the interference, the Court observes that the Budapest High Court only briefly stated that it had reviewed the documents produced by the CPO, from which it was clear to it that the applicant’s presence in Hungary constituted a serious threat to national security. It did not make any reference to the evidential basis for this finding. Nor did it provide an explanation as to whether and how the authorities were able to demonstrate the existence of the specific facts serving as a basis for their recommendation to expel the first applicant. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |