CASE OF BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Béláné Nagy v. Hungary (no. 53080/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 53080/13
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-12-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1213JUD005308013
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 35;35-3;41;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary
Represented by: CECH A.
Issue: Act no. XX of 1949 on the Constitution ; Article XIX of the Fundamental Law Act no. LXXXI of 1997 on Social-Security Pensions

Strasbourg case-law cited: Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, § 42, 20 May 2010;Anheuser-Busch Inv. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I;Antoni Lewandowski v. Poland, no. 38459/03, §§ 78 and 82, 2 October 2012;Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, §§ 28 and 35, 22 October 2009;Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), nos. 40832/98, 40833/98 and 40906/98, 27 April 1999;Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 100-105, ECHR 2000-I;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2010;Da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 62235/12 and 57725/12, § 22, 8 October 2013;Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 37, 1 September 2015;Domalewski, v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999 V;Fakas v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 4519/11, §§ 34, 37-43, 48, 3 June 2014;Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 87, ECHR 2000 XII;Frimu and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/1 and 45588/11, § 40, 13 December 2012;Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, 16 September 1996, § 41;Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015;Goudswaard-Van der Lans v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75255/01, ECHR 2005-XI;Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 69- 74, ECHR 2002-VII;Grudić v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, 17 April 2012;Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, ECHR 1999-II;Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, §§ 81-94, ECHR 2005 VI;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 141, ECHR 2001-VII;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], no. 42461/13, § 156, 17 May 2016;Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, §§ 39-45, ECHR 2004 IX;Klein v. Austria, no. 57028/00, §§ 45-46, 3 March 2011;Kolesnyk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 57116/10, §§ 83, 89 and 91, 3 June 2014;Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, ECHR 2004-IX;Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, §§ 37-42, ECHR 2003-X;Koufaki and ADEDY v. Greece (dec.), nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12, §§ 37 and 39, 7 May 2013;Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06, 37205/06, 37207/06 and 33604/07, §§ 70-72, 13 December 2011;Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, §§ 61-63, 31 May 2011;Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 67, ECHR 2005 IX;Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 41, 15 September 2009;Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission Report of 1 October 1975, DR 3, p. 25, § 30;N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, §§ 49 and 61, 14 May 2013;Panfile v. Roumania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015;Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222;Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 43, Series A no. 332;R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 47, 9 October 2012;Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, 28 April 2009;Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, 10 April 2012;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, ECHR 2015;Savickas v. Lithuania and Others (dec.), no. 66365/09, 15 October 2013;Skórkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999;Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X;Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, nos. 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21822/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, and 21870/10, 15 April 2014;Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 35, 24 June 2003;Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, ECHR 2011;Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, §§ 35-39, 26 June 2014;T. v. Sweden, no. 10671/83, decision of the Commission of 4 March 1985, DR 42, pp. 229-232;Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, 25 October 2011;Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 96, 25 October 2012;Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, 8 December 2009
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE