European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 173

April 2014

Kátai v. Hungary (dec.) - 939/12

Decision 18.3.2014 [Section II]

Article 34

Victim

Absence of victim status of disabled pensioner pending outcome of allegedly unlawful reassessment of his degree of disability: inadmissible

Facts - In 2007 a district court ruled in a final judgment that the applicant was suffering from grade III permanent disability, which entitled him to a disability pension equivalent to 37.5% of his average monthly salary. It ruled that that his condition was final and not susceptible to any further review. However, a new system of disability allowances was introduced by statute in 2011. Under the new scheme, beneficiaries had to apply for a reassessment of their health by expert committees. Once they had applied, they became entitled to a transitional allowance in an amount equal to their previous pension until the reassessment took place. Depending on the outcome of the reassessment, they could be granted a “disability allowance” or a “rehabilitation allowance”. However, if they were found not to qualify for either allowance, their entitlement could be removed altogether. In any event, they would lose some of the benefits formerly attached to their previous status as pensioners, such as reductions for public transport and tourist attractions. The applicant sought a reassessment of his health in accordance with the new scheme. This was still pending at the date of the European Court’s decision.

In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained that the new legislation removing his entitlement to a disability pension and the requirement for him to undergo a fresh assessment to qualify for an allowance had frustrated his rights to legal certainty, non-discrimination and property, contrary to Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Law - Article 34: As a former beneficiary of a disability pension, the applicant was in principle concerned by the impugned legislation. However, the reassessment of his condition with a view to establishing any new entitlement had yet to take place and in the meantime he continued to be in receipt of his former entitlements. He had not, therefore, suffered any relevant material prejudice on account of the new legislation. Rather than embarking on a closer scrutiny of the legislative changes potentially affecting the applicant’s entitlement, the Court would rule on the admissibility of the application in the light of the situation as it stood. It was satisfied that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention, for the purposes of Article 34.

Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae).

 

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes