SECOND SECTION
Application no. 65681/13
László VÉKONY
against Hungary
lodged on 14 October 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr László Vékony, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Sopron.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012.
According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The final time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013.
Entities previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender.
The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013. Furthermore, Government Decree no. 181/2013. (VI. 7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published only on 8 June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process – the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013.
The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself. It appears that the criteria according to which the concessions had been granted were never made public.
The applicant, an ex-tobacconist active in this business for 20 years, applied for a concession on 4 February 2013; he also paid the relevant application fee. He then amended his application according to the upcoming new rules, on 20 February 2013.
On 13 April 2013 the applicant was informed, by ND Zrt, that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decision contained no reasons.
No compensation is available for ex-tobacconists who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood. The refusal is not subject to any kind of legal remedy.
The applicant submits that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been doing tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence. This is corroborated by the fact that some winners have obtained more than one (up to five) concessions for multiple selling spots.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that the loss of his licence amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions in discriminatory circumstances.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has he been deprived of his possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did such deprivation or other interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy