FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF E.B. v. HUNGARY
\n(Application no. 41281\/13)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n5 June 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of E.B. v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Having deliberated in private on 15 May 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 41281\/13) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Hungarian national, Ms E.B. (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 18 June 2013. The President of the Section acceded to the applicant\u2019s request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 \u00a7 4 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr D.A. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr Z. Tall\u00f3di, Agent, Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 September 2016the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the imposition of 98% tax on part of her severance payment was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule\u00a054\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Balatonalm\u00e1di.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was employed from 1978 until 2013 at an institution operated by the State.Upon the termination of her employment, a certain part of her severance payment was taxed at a 98% rate, in the amount of 7,961,222\u00a0Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 26,500 euros (EUR)).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the imposition of 98% tax on part of her remuneration due on termination of her employment had amounted to a deprivation of property in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 (no. 41838\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 54-62, 2 July 2013), and is satisfied that there is no reason to hold otherwise in the present application.<\/p>\n It follows that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed HUF\u00a07,961,222\u00a0(approximately EUR 26,500) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s claimswere excessive.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the fact that, in the absence of the 98% tax rate, the applicant\u2019s severance would have been in all likelihood subject to the general personal income taxation, the Court awards the applicant EUR\u00a015,800 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred before the Court to be awarded in the amount of EUR 1,500.<\/p>\n The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s cost claim was excessive.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to all materials in the case file, the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 500, for the costs and expenses pertaining to the proceedings before it.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 15,800 (fifteen thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined; and<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 June 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Andrea Tamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vincent A. De Gaetano
\nGeorges Ravarani,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n