Communicated on 16 December 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 46626/13
László Istvánné HODOROG
against Hungary
lodged on 16 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms László Istvánné Hodorog, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Balatonszabadi. She is represented before the Court by Mr G. Magyar, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012.
According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013.
Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender.
The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013, with entry into force on 1 July 2013. Government Decree no. 181/2013. (VI.7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published on 8 June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process, the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013. The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself.
The applicant, a tobacco retailer active in this business since 2008, applied for a concession and paid the relevant application fee.
On 10 July 2013 the applicant was informed, in a letter sent by ND Zrt, that she had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decision said that her application did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings.
No compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood. (In 2012 tobacco retail represented 76.66% of the turnover of the shop the applicant runs.) The refusal was not subject to any legal remedy. The applicant submits that she pursued a constitutional complaint, and that although the outcome was not known on introducing the present application, this legal avenue could not in any case provide material redress.
The applicant further submits that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been engaged tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the effective removal of her tobacco retail licence amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions. She also argues that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the loss of her retail. She further complains that she had been subject of political discrimination, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy