Published on 13 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 23661/23
Mihály KÁRPÁTI
against Hungary
lodged on 27 May 2023
communicated on 25 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the ineligibility of the 68-year-old applicant for a disability allowance between 2019 and 2024 on account of his speech impairment.
The applicant has been living with a speech disorder (aphasia) following a stroke in 2019. His request of 16 August 2019 for a disability allowance was rejected by the administrative authorities because he did not qualify as “severely disabled” under Act no. XXVI of 1998 on the Rights and Equal Opportunities of Persons with Disabilities. He unsuccessfully challenged the decisions before an ordinary court. On 11 May 2022 he submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Court. On 14 February 2023 the Constitutional Court found that the fact that persons living with communication impairments were fully and automatically excluded from the disability allowance regime resulted in an unconstitutional difference in treatment when compared with people living with other types of severe disabilities. The Constitutional Court called upon the Parliament to discharge its legislative duty and to remedy the unconstitutionality by 31 December 2023. The legislator complied with the request and from 1 January 2024 people with speech impairments whose condition moderately or severely hinders their communication and access to services and information became eligible for disability allowance.
Between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2024 the applicant was receiving the disability allowance in question on the grounds of his severe mobility disability. Since 1 July 2024 he has been receiving the disability allowance on account of his speech impairment.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that in the domestic proceedings, in the assessment of his request for disability benefits, he suffered an unjustified difference in treatment as a person with a communication impairment compared with persons living with other types of severe disabilities.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Had the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, §§ 138-43, 27 November 2023)? If not, the Government is invited to provide relevant domestic case-law on the effectiveness of the remedies available to the applicant but not yet exhausted.
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in the assessment of his request for disability benefits (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 51-56, ECHR 2005‑X; Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, §§ 123-127 and 133‑137, 19 December 2018; and X and others v. Ireland, nos. 23851/20 and 24360/20, § 69, 22 June 2023)?