Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRAPITSYNA AND ISAEVA v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TRAPITSYNA AND ISAEVA v. HUNGARY

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  The issue of such protection, including the procedural safeguards against such abuse, overlaps with similar issues analysed in the examination of the decision-making process by means of the proportionality test under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 86, 26 July 2011, and Gaspar, cited above, § 41).
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 1537/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  Failing such safeguards, the police or other State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 124, 20 June 2002, and Kaushal and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1537/08, § 29, 2 September 2010).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  24130/11 and 29758/11, § 133, 15 November 2016).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  Rn. 53 States are entitled to control the entry and residence of aliens on their territories (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, § 67, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94).
• EuGH, 04.06.2013 - C-300/11

  Einem Betroffenen ist der wesentliche Inhalt der Begründung einer Entscheidung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  Rn. 36 The judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) in the case of ZZ (judgment of 4 June 2013, C-300/11, EU:C:2013:363) concerned the exclusion of a citizen of a member State from the territory of another member State on grounds of public security.
• EuGH, 22.09.2022 - C-159/21

  Aberkennung des internationalen Schutzes infolge einer Beeinträchtigung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  Rn. 33 Concerning Hungarian legislation and practice that withdrew international protection on the grounds of a risk to national security, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in the case of Országos Idegenrendézeti Főigazgatóság and Others (judgment of 22 September 2022, C-159/21, EU:C:2022:708) that EU law was to be construed as precluding Hungarian legislation which allowed the person concerned or his or her adviser to access the case file only after obtaining authorisation to that end, and without being provided with the reasons for the decision.
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  In cases examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, in which national security has been invoked as grounds for the impugned measure, the Court has held that the aliens concerned must be informed of the relevant factual elements which had led the competent domestic authorities to consider that they represented a threat to national security and must be given access to the content of the documents and the information relied on by the authorities, without prejudice to the possibility of imposing duly justified limitations on such information if necessary (see, mutatis mutandis, Ljatifi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 19017/16, § 35, 17 May 2018; Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, §§ 128-29, 15 October 2020; and Mirzoyan, cited above, § 83).
• EuGH, 10.10.2011 - C-300/11

  ZZ

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  Rn. 36 The judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) in the case of ZZ (judgment of 4 June 2013, C-300/11, EU:C:2013:363) concerned the exclusion of a citizen of a member State from the territory of another member State on grounds of public security.
• EGMR, 16.05.2024 - 15117/21

  MIRZOYAN v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  In keeping with this principle of harmonious interpretation of the Convention, the Court considers that, in cases concerning measures affecting an alien's residence permit in a manner that may potentially lead to his or her expulsion, procedural safeguards under Article 8 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of those provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, insofar as relevant (see Mirzoyan v. the Czech Republic, nos. 15117/21 and 15689/21, § 82, 16 May 2024).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 23038/15

  GASPAR v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 5488/22

  Where there is an arguable claim that the measure threatens to interfere with an alien's right to respect for his or her private and family life, States must make available to the individual concerned the effective possibility of challenging the measure and having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality (see Gaspar v. Russia, no. 23038/15, § 42, 12 June 2018).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 53/12

  SAEED v. DENMARK

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2026 - 32317/23

  CUNAJ v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 10 The relevant domestic and EU law and practice have been set out in Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary (no. 5488/22, §§ 25-36, 19 September 2024), and Demirci v. Hungary (no. 48302/21, §§ 21-23, 6 May 2025).
• EGMR, 06.05.2025 - 48302/21

  DEMIRCI v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 21 For the relevant domestic law and practice, see Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary (no. 5488/22, §§ 25-32, 19 September 2024).

  Rn. 42 As regards the first applicant's right to be informed of the factual elements underlying the expulsion decision, it should be noted that, in accordance with section 10(1) of the Classified Information Act and the case-law of the Hungarian courts (see Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, § 32, 19 September 2024), if the CPO has decided to classify the information contained in its recommendation, the administrative and judicial decisions declaring that an alien constitutes a risk or threat to national security and expelling him or her on this ground could not disclose that information or the factual reasons relied on by the CPO.

• EGMR, 07.05.2026 - 53371/18

  SENER v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court has already applied the same approach in a case concerning the expulsion of a foreign national on national security grounds, accompanied by a bar on re-entry (see Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, §§ 57-61 and §§ 63-85, 19 September 2024).

• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 25828/23

  FAL c. ESPAGNE

  Furthermore, the Court has already applied the same approach in a case concerning the expulsion of a foreign national on national security grounds, accompanied by a bar on re-entry (see Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, §§ 57-61 and 63-85, 19 September 2024).
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 10102/24

  GIRUTSKIY v. HUNGARY

  The relevant domestic law has been set out in Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary (no. 5488/22, §§ 25-36, 19 September 2024) and in Szalontay v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 71327/13, § 22, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR - 30630/24 (anhängig)

  M.D. v. GEORGIA

  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; Mirzoyan v. the Czech Republic, nos. 15117/21 and 15689/21, 16 May 2024; and Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, 19 September 2024)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the relevant domestic proceedings attended by sufficient procedural guarantees?.
• EGMR - 14953/26 (anhängig)

  D.T. v. HUNGARY

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the domestic proceedings attended by sufficient procedural guarantees (see Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, §§ 72-73 and 77-80, 19 September 2024)?.
• EGMR - 5603/26 (anhängig)

  K.H. v. HUNGARY

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the domestic proceedings attended by sufficient procedural guarantees (see Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary, no. 5488/22, §§ 72-73 and 77-80, 19 September 2024)? Furthermore, did the domestic courts carry out an appropriate balancing exercise among the interests at stake and did they justify the national security grounds upon the revocation of the applicant's national settlement permit and status?.