CASE OF ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-12-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5294/14
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-07-07 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD000529414
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 34;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Dmitry Dedov;Ganna Yudkivska;Helen Keller;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: GARDOS I.
Issue: Act no. CXXXV of 2013 on the Integration of Cooperative Credit Institutions and the Amendment of Certain Laws Regarding Economic Matters ; Act no. CXCVI of 2013 on the Amendment of Certain Laws Regarding the Integration of Cooperative Credit Institutions

Strasbourg case-law cited: Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330 A;Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI;Antilla v. Finland (dec.), no. 16248/10, 19 November 2013;Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 30, ECHR 2006 XIV;Bayramov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), 23055/03, 14 February 2006;Berlusconi v. Italy [GC], no. 58428/13, § 65, 27 November 2018;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008;Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004;Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 49429/99, 9 September 2004;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 96 and 101, ECHR 2014;Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], 38433/09, §§ 92-95, 7 June 2012;COMPANY S. and T. v. Sweden, no. 11189/84, Commission decision of 11 December 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR);Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, § 51, 21 October 2003;Dyrwold v. Sweden, no. 12259/86, Commission decision of 7 September 1990;Erbs v. France, no. 23313/94, Commission decision of 18 May 1995;Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş. v. Turkey, nos. 25707/05 and 28614/06, §§ 59 -61, 20 November 2018;Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine, no. 42758/05, §§ 28-29, 21 December 2017;Fridh and Cifond Aktiebolag v. Sweden, no. 14017/88, Commission decision of 2 July 1992;Gardean and S.C. Grup 95 SA v. Romania, no. 25787/04, §§ 16-18, 1 December 2009;Georgescu and Prodas Holding S.A. v. Romania (dec.), no. 25830/03, 27 May 2014;Gubarev and Serdyukov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42334/06, 18 June 2019;Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 39, 26 June 2012;Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, § 173, 21 November 2019;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 100, 4 December 2018;International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, §§  90-92, 2 June 2016;J.W. v. Poland, no. 27917/95, Commission decision of 11 September 1997;Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, §§ 38-42, 29 July 2010;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 140-41, ECHR 2001 VII;Kaplan v. the United Kingdom, no. 7598/76, Commission decision of 14 December 1978;Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, §§ 123-126, 15 November 2007;Kind v. Germany, no. 44324/98, Commission decision of 30 March 2000;Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, § 74, 20 April 2010;KIPS DOO and Drekalović v. Montenegro, no. 28766/06, §§ 86-87, 26 June 2018;Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 111 and 115, 11 December 2018;Melo Tadeu v. Portugal, no. 27785/10, § 75, 23 October 2014;Nassau Verzerkering Maatschappij N.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 57602/09, § 21, 4 October 2011;Offerhaus and Offerhaus v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35730/97, 16 January 2001;Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002 X (extracts);Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006 XV;Reisner v. Turkey, no. 46815/09, § 45, 21 July 2015;Rysovskyy v.Ukraine, no. 29979/04, §§ 46-49, 20 October 2011;S.C. Bartolo Prod Com SRL and Botomei v. Romania, no. 16294/03, §§ 29-31, 21 February 2012;S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 26429/07, §§ 38-41, 13 December 2016;S.p.r.l. ANCA and Others v. Belgium, no. 10259/83, Commission decision of 10 December 1984;Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, §§ 80-92, 20 September 2011;Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 92, 25 July 2002;Soyuer and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 49445/07, 21 June 2011;Tee v. the United Kingdom, no. 26663/95, Commission decision of 28 February 1996;Vesela and Loyka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 54811/00, 13 December 2005;Vladimirova v. Russia, no. 21863/05, §§ 40-41, 10 April 2018;Vujović and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro, no. 18912/15, §§ 29-30, 20 February 2018;Yarrow and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 9266/81, Commission decision of 18 January 1983, D.R. 30, p. 155;Zülfikari v. Turkey, nos. 6372/05 and 52543/07, § 47, 19 March 2019
Conclusion: Inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim
Separate opinion: TRUE