FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 70758/11
Mihály RÁDAY
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 August 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2011,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Mihály Ráday, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Magyar, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent at the Ministry of Justice.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. From 1 September 1968 the applicant was employed at the Hungarian Television, a State-owned company. His employment was terminated by mutual agreement as of 14 September 2010.
5. On 22 July 2010 Parliament adopted Act no. XC of 2010 on the Adoption and Modification of Certain Economic and Financial Laws (“the Act”). Under this new legislation a certain part of the applicant’s severance pay was subject to special tax at a 98% rate. Accordingly, special tax was levied upon the applicant’s severance pay in the amount of 1,799,687 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant paid the amount on 24 May 2011.
6. On 30 July 2014 the applicant filed with the National Tax Authority a self-revision in which he reported reduction in his tax liability. Upon his self-revision, a tax audit was carried out by the tax authority for the year 2010. During these proceedings, on 30 September 2014, section 12/D of the Act entered into force. Under this provision, the tax authority invited the applicant to give a statement, among others, as to whether any domestic or international remedy proceedings were pending or closed in relation to his special tax liability, and, if such remedy proceedings had been terminated, as to whether he had become entitled to damages.
7. The applicant filed a statement alleging that no domestic or international remedy proceedings were pending and he had not become entitled to any damages.
8. Based on the applicant’s statement, the tax authority quashed the applicant’s 98% tax liability and applied in its stead a 75% flat rate under section 12/D of the Act. The tax authority ordered the reimbursement of the difference, that is, HUF 775,727 (approximately EUR 2,600). The decision was served on the applicant and became final on 23 April 2015. On 26 May 2015 this amount was paid to the applicant.
The applicant did not inform the Court of these developments.
COMPLAINT
9. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the tax rates applied to his severance pay amounted to an unjustified deprivation of property.
THE LAW
10. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to inform the Court of an important development in the case, that is, that the tax authority had cancelled his 98% special tax liability and applied instead a 75% rate. As a consequence, a substantial amount of money had been reimbursed to him, reducing the pecuniary loss sustained (see paragraph 8 above). Moreover, in the domestic proceedings the applicant had misled the authorities by saying that no domestic or international remedy proceedings had been pending in relation to his tax liability (see paragraph 7 above).
11. In his observations in reply received by the Court on 30 March 2016, the applicant did not deny the reimbursement, but stressed that the application of the 75% rate as such amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
12. The Court notes that where important developments occur during the proceedings pending before the Court and, despite his obligation prescribed in the Rules of Procedure, the applicant fails to inform the Court thereof, thus preventing the Court from determining the case in full knowledge of the facts, the application may be dismissed for abuse of right (see Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008; see also Salto v. Italy, (dec.) no. 19424/08, § 29, 8 March 2016, and the authorities cited therein).
13. In the present case, the applicant has not furnished any plausible explanation for the failure to inform the Court of the change of the tax regime and the resultant reimbursement. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the case, the Court finds that the applicant’s conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention. This complaint must therefore be rejected as an abuse of the right of application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
14. Moreover, the Court notes that even if considering the applicant’s subsequent complaint about the imposition at 75% as a new complaint, this must be declared inadmissible because of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In regard to this complaint – which was not included in the initial application – the running of the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 was not interrupted until the date when it was first submitted to the Court, that is, when the applicant’s observations reached the Court on 30 March 2016 (see paragraph 11 above). However, the decision on imposing the 75% rate on the applicant had been served on him on 23 April 2015 (see paragraph 8 above), that is, more than six months before. This complaint has thus been introduced out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 September 2016.
Andrea TamiettiNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy