CASE OF FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Fábián v. Hungary (no. 78117/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-11-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 78117/13
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-09-05 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0905JUD007811713
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 14;14+P1-1;35;35-1;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: GRÁD A.
Issue: Section 83/C of the 1997 Pensions Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, § 222, 2 December 2010;Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain, no. 42430/05, § 48, 2 February 2010;Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48539/99, 28 August 2001;Allesch and Others v. Austria, no. 18168/91, Commission decision of 1 December 1993;Apostolakis v. Greece, no. 39574/07, 22 October 2009;Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, ECHR 2005 XI;Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, ECHR 2016;Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 88, ECHR 2016;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006 III,;Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 70, ECHR 2016 (extracts);Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010;Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, § 66, 13 July 2010;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 177, ECHR 2007 IV;da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015;E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008;Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 48420/10 and 3 others, § 86, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 56, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no. 37359/09, § 109, ECHR 2014;Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts);İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 158, ECHR 2016;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98;Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, ECHR 2017;Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004 IX;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36672/97, 7 December 2004;Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06 and 3 others, 13 December 2011;Lenz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40862/98, ECHR 2001 X;Liebscher and Others v. Austria, no. 25170/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996;Matheis v. Germany (dec.), no. 73711/01, 1 February 2005;Mauriello v. Italy (dec.), no. 14862/07, § 39, 13 September 2016;Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 74, 15 September 2009;Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 3, 20 March 2012;Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 67, ECHR 1999 VIII;Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011;Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 29, 29 June 2012;Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 87, ECHR 2003 VIII;Sâmbata Bihor Greco-Catholic Parish v. Romania (dec.), no. 48107/99, 25 May 2004;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 217, ECHR 2015;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 and 7 others, §§ 59 60, 15 April 2014;Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 88, ECHR 2011;Topčić-Rosenberg v. Croatia, no. 19391/11, § 36, 14 November 2013;Torri and Others v. Italy (dec.), nos. 11838/07 and 12302/07, § 37, 24 January 2012;Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04 and 8 others, 25 October 2011;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 85, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 46, Series A no. 70;Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007 II;Weller v. Hungary, no. 44399/05, § 27, 31 March 2009;X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 98, ECHR 2013
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No 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;Possessions);No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Separate opinion: TRUE