Communicated on 7 February 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 47872/15
MHZ KFT against Hungary
and 10 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the creation of a new register of liquidators, which, unlike the previous one, limits the number of companies potentially enrolled. As a result, several liquidators who had been pursuing that activity for a long time, but whose application for the new list was rejected, lost their licences. They challenged in court both the result of the new tender and their deletions from the list. They successfully obtained stays of execution of their deletions. However, the interim measures adopted by the domestic courts, although they were confirmed on appeal and thus became final and executory, remained ineffective.
The applicants complain that the authorities’ failure to comply with the stays of execution amounted to a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?
2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement according to which final, binding judicial decisions cannot remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see, among other authorities, Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II, and Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, § 176, ECHR 2004‑V (extracts))?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with the stays of execution and on account of the fact that the applicants are unable to pursue their previous activity notwithstanding the final interim measures? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010; and B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, §§ 43‑44, 17 January 2017)?
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
47872/15
17/09/2015
MHZ KFT
MHZ KFT
Szolnok
András FODOR
49750/15
29/09/2015
CITY INVEST KFT
CITY INVEST KFT
Győr
Péter KÁRPÁTI
52387/15
29/09/2015
CONCUR BEFEKTETÉSI KFT
CONCUR BEFEKTETÉSI KFT
Budapest
Péter KÁRPÁTI
52428/15
16/10/2015
198. SZ. JURIS-INVEST KFT
198. SZ. JURIS-INVEST KFT
Berettyóújfalu
Antal KÖKÉNYESI
55024/15
28/10/2015
HUNYADI VÁLSÁGMENEDZSER ÉS FELSZÁMOLÓ ZRT
HUNYADI VÁLSÁGMENEDZSER ÉS FELSZÁMOLÓ ZRT
Budapest
Ágnes HAJDÚ
55189/15
30/10/2015
PRO-CREDITOR KFT
PRO-CREDITOR KFT
Budapest
László FARKAS
55199/15
27/10/2015
CSABAHOLDING SZOLGÁLTATÓ KFT
CSABAHOLDING SZOLGÁLTATÓ KFT
Budapest
László FARKAS
61673/15
08/12/2015
FACTOR KFT
FACTOR KFT
Budapest
Artúr TAMÁSI
2262/16
23/12/2015
HUBERTUS PÉNZÜGYI GAZDASÁGI TANÁCSADÓ KFT
HUBERTUS PÉNZÜGYI GAZDASÁGI TANÁCSADÓ KFT
Pécs
Artúr TAMÁSI
3948/16
23/12/2015
PÁTRIA CONSULT ZMRT
PÁTRIA CONSULT ZMRT
Budapest
Artúr TAMÁSI
18396/16
25/03/2016
DELTA NOVA FELSZÁMOLÓ ÉS TANÁCSADÓ KFT
DELTA NOVA FELSZÁMOLÓ ÉS TANÁCSADÓ KFT
Tata
Artúr TAMÁSI
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy