Striking a Balance: EU Law, National Security and Procedural Guarantees in Hungarian Immigration Procedures and the Lessons of the GM Case

Abstract

In the GM case, the Court of Justice of the European Union condemned the Hungarian legal practice of restricting the right to know the reasons for a decision when national security is at stake. The case emphasises individual rights in relation to state interests, highlighting the challenges in legal remedies involving classified data. EU integration requires mutual respect between Member States and the EU, balancing law, public order and national security. While Member States possess procedural autonomy, their rules must align with EU law’s principles of equivalence and effectiveness. The balance between national security and procedural safeguards in immigration decisions is a broader issue. The involvement of secret services and restricted access to case files raise fairness concerns in other Member States as well. The decision in the GM case is a landmark judgment that clarifies the obligations of EU Member States when handling asylum cases involving national security concerns. It underscores the necessity of maintaining the balance between national security and the protection of fundamental rights, thereby ensuring that asylum seekers have access to a fair and transparent legal process. The GM case illustrates a general problem with Hungary’s immigration procedures. In any case, practices that compromise constitutional principles are considered unconstitutional, regardless of the implications associated with the EU.