SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PATARICZA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 44197/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 March 2015
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pataricza v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
András Sajó,
Robert Spano, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 44197/11) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr János Pataricza (“the applicant”), on 15 July 2011.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr E. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. The applicant complained that the imposition of 98% tax on part of his severance payment was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and several provisions of the Convention.
4. On 6 June 2014 the complaint concerning the alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to property was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.
6. On 1 July 2003 the applicant was appointed as managing director of State-owned company. His employment was terminated as of
15 September 2010. The employer paid the applicant severance payment in the gross amount of 13,294,125 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately
42,000 euros (EUR)), subject to payroll burdens.
7. Under new legislation (see paragraph 8 below) the severance payment was subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in its part exceeding HUF 2 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid (see paragraph 6 above) were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, the applicant paid an additional HUF 5,365,275 (approximately EUR 16,800) in special tax on 3 May 2011.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
8. For relevant domestic law, see the judgments N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013) and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17,
2 July 2013).
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complained about the imposition of 98% tax on part of his remuneration due on termination of his employment. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Government contested that argument.
10. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
11. The Court observes that virtually identical circumstances gave rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 54-62, 2 July 2013) and is satisfied that there is no reason to hold otherwise in the present application.
It follows that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
12. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed HUF 5,702,968 (EUR 17,900) in respect of pecuniary and HUF 1,000,000 (EUR 3,200) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
13. The Government contested these claims.
14. On the basis of equity, the Court awards the applicant EUR 17,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined.
15. The applicant also claimed HUF 720,000 (EUR 2,300) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
16. The Government contested this claim.
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the full amount he claimed, that is EUR 2,300.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State:
(i) EUR 17,500 (seventeen thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined;
(ii) EUR 2,300 (two thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 March 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Abel CamposHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy