The Constitutional Court held that in a case where the acting authority finds, on the basis of the opinion of expert agencies, that the applicant's stay would violate or endanger the national security of Hungary, the application for statelessness status shall be rejected on procedural grounds without further examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a stateless person.
International
- UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Articles 1, 7, 28, 31 ('1954 Convention')
National
- Fundamental Law of Hungary, sections Q, XIV and XV
- Government Decree no. 114/2007 (V.24.) on the Implementation of Act no. II of 2007
- Act no. II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third-Country Nationals ('Act on Third-Country Nationals')
The applicant requested the Hungarian National Directorate-General for Foreigners Policing ('the administrative authority') to officially grant him statelessness status. The administrative authority rejected the applicant’s request in 2017. The applicant initiated legal proceedings before the courts, which resulted in the High Court of Hungary (the Curia) annulling the first and second instance court decisions as well as the administrative authority's decision, ordering the administrative authority to issue a new decision in the applicant’s case.
In the repeated procedure, and upon request from the administrative authority, the Counter Terrorism Agency and the Constitution Protection Office of Hungary issued an opinionon establishing that the applicant’s stay in Hungary would violate and endanger the national security of Hungary. On this basis, the administrative authority rejected the applicant’s request as, pursuant to section 78. § (1) c) of the Act on Third-Country Nationals, “the request to grant statelessness status shall be rejected in case the applicant’s stay in Hungary would violate or endanger the national security of Hungary”.
The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court of Hungary after the second rejection decision.
According to the applicant, the 1954 Convention exhaustively lists all the grounds for rejection. In the applicant’s view, both the original English wording and the official Hungarian translation of the 1954 Convention are clear that the exhaustive nature of the list for grounds for rejection is mandatory and non-derogatory. As the reason that served as a basis for rejection in the applicant’s case was not explicitly stated in the text of the 1954 Convention, it should not serve as a grounds for rejection.
Subsequently the applicant submitted tha, by adding a ground for rejection unilaterally, Hungary and the administrative authority acted contrary to the 1954 Convention and Section Q) (2) and (3) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which prescribes that all Hungarian law shall be in line and in accordance with its international obligations.
The Constitutional Court had to decide whether section 78. (1) c) of the Act on Third-Country Nationals is in accordance with the Fundamental Law of Hungary, in particular section Q (2) thereof. Section Q (2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary prescribes that all Hungarian laws shall be in accordance with Hungary’s international obligations, i.e. the international treaties to which Hungary is a party. Therefore, the Constitutional Court had to examine whether the current wording of the Act on Third-Country Nationals is in line with the 1954 Convention.
The Constitutional Court noted that Section 7. paragraph 1. of the 1954 Convention prescribes that each country shall treat stateless persons in the same manner as they generally treat foreigners. With regards to the foregoing, the Constitutional Court established that the Act on Third-Country Nationals prescribes that Hungary shall reject entry into or stay in Hungary for such foreigners that violate or endanger the public order, public safety, national security, or public health interests of Hungary.
The Constitutional Court noted that the rights stipulated in Sections 28 and 31 of the 1954 Convention are only applicable to stateless persons who are lawfully residing in a country, consequently in the case of Hungary this means that the referred sections of the 1954 Convention are only applicable to stateless persons who do not violate or endanger Hungary’s national security or public safety.
With regards to the above, the Constitutional Court established that the national security review based on Section 79. (1) c) of the Act on Third-Country Nationals is a pre-condition of the material review of the applicant’s request for stateless status, and it is a pre-condition exactly in order to comply with the provisions of the 1954 Convention and with the provisions of Section Q) (2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary. Therefore, in a case where the competent authorities issue an opinion stating that the applicant’s stay in Hungary would violate or endanger the national security of Hungary, the request shall be rejected on procedural grounds without material review of the request.
The Constitutional Court held that in a case where the acting authority finds, on the basis of the opinion of expert agencies, that the applicant's stay would violate or endanger the national security of Hungary, the application for statelessness status shall be rejected on procedural grounds without further examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a stateless person.