European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF DÉNES v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 67587/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

 

26 July 2016

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Dénes v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
          Egidijus Kūris,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 67587/11) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Ms Andrásné Dénes (“the applicant”), on 25 October 2011.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr E. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent at the Ministry of Justice.

3.  On 31 August 2015 the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the imposition of 98% tax on her severance pay was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.

5.  From 1 July 2002 the applicant was employed as a civil servant at the Prime Minister’s Office. Her service was terminated by the employer on 15 May 2010.

6.  Under new legislation (see paragraph 7 below) the applicant’s severance pay was subject to special tax at a 98% rate in its part exceeding 3,500,000 Hungarian forints (HUF). Accordingly, special tax was levied upon her severance pay in the amount of HUF 5,511,909 (approximately 18,400 euros (EUR)).

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

7.  For relevant domestic law, see the following judgments: N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013); and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17, 2 July 2013).

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

8.  The applicant complained about the imposition of 98% tax on part of her remuneration due on termination of her employment. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Government did not dispute the applicant’s allegations.

9.  The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

10.  The Court observes that virtually identical circumstances gave rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of R.Sz. v. Hungary (cited above, §§ 54-62), and is satisfied that there is no reason to hold otherwise in the present application.

It follows that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed HUF 5,511,909 (approximately EUR 18,400) in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 500,000 (approximately EUR 1,700) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

12.  The Government did not contest these claims.

13.  The Court awards the applicant the full sums claimed, that is EUR 18,400 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

14.  The applicant also claimed HUF 880,000 (EUR 2,900) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

15.  The Government contested the claim.

16.  Having regard to all materials in the case file, the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 2,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, for the costs of the proceedings before it.

17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Declares the application admissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

 

3.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 18,400 (eighteen thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,700 (one thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(iii)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Andrea Tamietti                                                            Vincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President