Published on 22 December 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 37383/23
NATIONAL HEALTH PRESERVATION AND ANTI-CANCER FOUNDATION
against Hungary
lodged on 24 September 2023
communicated on 1 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the annulment of a property title on grounds not imputable to the applicant organisation.
On 25 November 1992 the applicant organisation, a private foundation established with the objective of setting up a cancer prevention, detection and rehabilitation centre, signed a purchase agreement with the State Treasury Asset Management Entity (‘the Treasury’) to acquire a plot of land, formerly used as a Soviet military base in Szentendre, for 12.5 million Hungarian forints (HUF). An amendment to the contract was signed by the parties on 15 May 1995 and the applicant organisation’s ownership title was entered into the land registry.
In December 1996 the applicant organisation notified the Treasury of certain legal and financial difficulties it faced concerning the property development project. The related negotiations however did not lead to any tangible results.
In 1999 the municipality of Szentendre sought a judicial declaration that the purchase agreement was null and void. In that procedure, the Treasury sided with the applicant organisation in support of the validity of the agreement.
Permits and formal approvals of several administrative authorities were obtained in the 2000s, but the cancer screening centre was not set up due to a lack of resources and to disputes over the right to use the property.
In 2012 the State lodged a civil action seeking the restitution of the property. Following two remittals, first by the Kúria on 12 May 2015 and then by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 30 October 2019, the lower courts held that the purchase agreement had been validly concluded, but it ceased to produce legal effects on the day the project proved impossible to be realised.
On 23 June 2022 the Kúria upheld the second-instance court decision which had declared that neither party to the agreement was at fault. It annulled the title of the applicant organisation retrospectively and ordered the property to be returned to the State. The initial purchase price of HUF 12.5 million (not adjusted for change in market value) had to be paid back to the applicant organisation (restitutio in integrum). On 9 May 2023 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant organisation’s constitutional complaint inadmissible. That decision was served on the lawyer of the applicant organisation on 24 May 2023.
The applicant organisation complains that it has been deprived of the property that it had acquired in good faith, while the amount paid back by the State disregarded the change of market value or inflation. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular:
(a) Did the annulment of its title to the property take place in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? Was the domestic law leading to the restitution of the property because of the applicant organisation’s failure to obtain a “permit” (létesítési engedély) within the meaning of Government resolution no. 1032/1991 sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95- 99, 25 October 2012 and Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece, no. 13959/20, §§ 65-70, 6 May 2025)?
(b) Did the interference in question strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights? In particular, did the authorities act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I and Muharrem Güneş and Others v. Turkey, no. 23060/08, § 75, 24 November 2020)? Did the applicant organisation have to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see Gashi v. Croatia, no. 32457/05, § 40, 13 December 2007; Szkórits v. Hungary, no. 58171/09, §§ 44-45, 16 September 2014; Barcza and Others v. Hungary, no. 50811/10, §§ 41-48, 11 October 2016)?