SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45413/12
Mónika Anna THOMA
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 December 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 June 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Mónika Anna Thoma, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest. Before the Court, she was represented by Mr D. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2008 the applicant took a loan on mortgage in the amount of 64,451 Swiss francs (CHF) from a commercial bank. The loan was secured by a plot of land.
A subsequent amendment to Act no. CXII of 1996 on Credit Institutions and Financial Enterprises provided for the early lump-sum repayment of foreign currency mortgage loans at a preferential exchange rate. The purpose of this legislation was to enable such households as indebted in foreign currency to reduce their financial burdens. Accordingly, financial institutions were required to apply the preferential exchange rate, far below the current market rate, when receiving early repayments, but only if the loan was secured by a residential property.
Having secured her loan by a plot of land, rather than a residential property, the applicant was not eligible for the early repayment scheme.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that her exclusion from the early repayment scheme was discriminatory and deprived her of her property. For want of any remedy against the alleged grievances, she also invoked Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that those, whose foreign currency loan had not been secured by a residential property, had been arbitrarily excluded by law from the possibility of early repayment of their mortgage loans at a preferential rate. As a consequence, having secured her loan by a plot of land, she had remained under the burden of high monthly loan instalments.
The Court observes that the Government have put in place a rescue scheme for those whose mortgage had become too burdensome and applied a limitation on the scope of the loans concerned. The applicant did not qualify – for the objective reason of having secured her loan in a way not falling within the category targeted by the Government – to participate in the rescue scheme. For this reason, the Court considers that the applicant did not have a claim which could be regarded as a “possession” within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
As regards Articles 13 and 14, these provisions having no independent existence in the circumstances, the related complaints are likewise incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 – in view of the Court’s above conclusion concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy