The applicant, a beneficiary of international protection, requested the right to long-term residence in Romania. His request was denied by the General Inspectorate for Immigration, which took into consideration an address issued on 26 March 2020 by a national security body, the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI). The address was classified as strictly secret so that it could not be communicated to the foreigner, who was not an authorized person to have access to top secret information, as provided by Law no. 182/2002 regarding the protection of classified information and Government Decision no. 585/2002 for the approval of the National Standards for the protection of classified information in Romania. IGI considered that there was reasonable suspicion based on strong evidence that he was involved in activities contrary to national security, acts and facts that constitute threats to national security, in the sense that he initiated and supported activities whose purpose is the commission of terrorist acts.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the appeal. It noted that the fact that the foreign citizen is the beneficiary of a right of temporary residence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for obtaining the right of long-term residence and the state is free to decide in accordance with the law and administratively regarding the stay of a foreigner on its territory. 

The High Court of Cassation and Justice noted that SRI’s address of 26 March 2020 mentioned that the foreign citizen posed a danger to the national security of Romania, without, however, including a minimum argument. The court noted that a tribunal in charge of controlling the legality of the decision to refuse long-term stay must be able to take cognizance of all the reasons and elements of evidence that were the basis of that decision.

From the analysis of the documents considered by the SRI when issuing the address in question, submitted at the request of the High Court to the Compartment of classified documents, the court could not find any indication in the sense of those asserted by the Inspectorate.

Thus, the High Court of Cassation and Justice found that the decision of the first court to maintain the measure taken by the Inspectorate, consisting in the refusal to grant the right of long-term residence, was illegal.

For these reasons, the High Court allowed the appeal ordering the Inspectorate to grant the right of permanent residence in Romania.