Turkish family man won big in Strasbourg after he was denied defense and was expelled from the country
Despite having a Hungarian wife and daughter and living lawfully in Hungary for 31 years, a Turkish father was expelled from the country. He was not even informed of the reasons why his presence was considered a security risk. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has awarded him just satisfaction amounting to approximately six million forints, ruling that the Hungarian state expelled him without ensuring a fair trial and adequate judicial remedy. Orhan Demirci was represented by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.
The Turkish national arrived lawfully in Hungary in 1990. He started a family, got married four years later, and had a daughter a year after that. His stay in Hungary was lawful throughout, and even at the time of his expulsion, he was residing in the country with the strongest valid residence permit as an immigrant.
Due to his family members being Hungarian citizens, he also held a residence card entitling him to permanent residence. Upon the expiration of its validity period, however, due to changes in legislation in the meantime, he was required to apply for a so-called national settlement permit instead. Since the issuance of this permit is almost automatic given the unchanged family situation and personal circumstances, he applied for it in 2020 with complete peace of mind.
However, in the meantime, immigration regulations have become significantly stricter. For instance, based on the expert opinions and recommendations of the Constitution Protection Office (AH) and the Counter Terrorism Centre (TEK), international protection (asylum) or residence rights can now be revoked essentially without justification, even at the cost of separating Hungarian families.
This is exactly what happened to Orhan Demirci. After 30 years, the Constitution Protection Office (AH) suddenly issued a statement claiming that his continued stay posed a risk to national security. At the same time, it recommended his expulsion and the imposition of a five-year entry and residence ban.
Since the AH cited national security concerns, the reasons were classified for decades, meaning neither the man nor his lawyer was allowed to know them. Orhan Demirci was shocked by this development and could not imagine what reasons might have led to such a serious accusation against him.
Under domestic law, the AH’s opinion and recommendation are binding and preclude any further investigation or discretion on the part of the immigration authority or the courts. The only possible outcome is automatic expulsion.
In Demirci’s case, the validity of the recommendation – based on classified information – was not examined, nor was the impact of the expulsion on the now-retired father and his family members. The immigration authority therefore rejected the issuance of a new residence permit and, in a procedure lasting only a single day, expelled the man, ordered his deportation, and imposed a five-year entry ban.
The desperate man turned to Hungarian courts, but judges stated that under the current legal framework they were not in a position to review the administrative decisions and accepted the AH’s opinion and recommendation without substantive assessment.
As a result, in March 2021, Demirci – a sickly elderly man who had lived in Hungary for three decades – was deported within a month of the final court ruling. Overnight, he had to dismantle 31 years of life in Hungary, sever family and social ties, and liquidate what he could to afford a minimum standard of living in Turkey, where he had no one to turn to for support. But the Hungarian state – which claims to uphold the sanctity of family and private life – showed no concern for this.
With help from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the family turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The ECtHR has now ruled unanimously that Hungary violated Orhan Demirci’s human rights. Domestic authorities and courts failed to provide him with a fair procedure and effective legal remedy to challenge either his expulsion or the expert opinion on which it was based. The Strasbourg court rejected the Hungarian state’s defense, which claimed that the domestic courts had acted lawfully and in accordance with the letter of the law.
The judgment clearly states that domestic laws and their application by the domestic authorities and courts are contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, rendering domestic decisions unlawful and arbitrary.
This is not the first international ruling in such cases. In addition to the Strasbourg court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also found that the domestic legal framework is incompatible with fundamental rights. A person facing expulsion cannot have their right to defense reduced to a minimum – let alone be deprived of it entirely. Both the CJEU and the Strasbourg court acknowledge the state’s interests in national and public security, and that protecting these interests may, in certain cases, require the classification of specific information. However, the deprivation of residence rights or expulsion, and the procedures leading to such decisions, can never be lawful if the individual concerned is not allowed to know the reasons behind the decision, even to a limited extent. The rights to defense, to a fair trial, and to an effective remedy cannot be rendered meaningless.
Domestic courts cannot be satisfied with merely rubber-stamping the recommendations and decisions of the authorities.
‘The Demirci family’s case is by no means exceptional in Hungary. Since 2020, countless families – often Hungarian families with small children – have turned to the Helsinki Committee for help because a foreign family member, even one who had lived in Hungary for decades, was suddenly being removed from the country on the grounds of posing a national security threat. Moreover, these decisions, which carry severe consequences, are systematically made without providing even the minimum opportunity for defense against the accusations. Even in criminal proceedings, no judgment can be passed without the accused being informed of the charges and evidence against them – even if the evidence is classified. The current ruling helps ensure that this fundamental safeguard applies to everyone; and we hope it will also help the Demirci family resume their family life here in Hungary,’ said Barbara Pohárnok, staff attorney for the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, who represented the family before the ECtHR.
This was the 112th case won by clients of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee before the Strasbourg court. Orhan Demirci was awarded a total of €14,700 in compensation.