FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 66842/13 Edit ÁYNÉ HARTL against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 8 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabeth Steiner , President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Erik Møse , judges, and André Wampach , De p uty Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 October 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Edit Áyné Hartl , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Pásztó . She was represented before the Court by Mr D. Karsai , a lawyer practising in Budapest .

The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi , Agent, Ministry of Justice .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

As of 1 May 2009 the applicant ’ s disability was rated at 55% and she started to receive a monthly “ rehabilitation allowance ” in the amount of 105,000 Hungarian forints (HUF ) ( approximately 350 euros (EUR)). O n 30 September 2011 the Nógrád County Pension Directorate prolonged the payment of the allowance until 30 April 2012.

In late 2011 , Act no. CXCI was enacted, effective as of 1 January 2012, which introduced a new system of disability and rehabilitation allowances , including an amended calculation method for the amount s payable .

On 7 March 2012 the applicant submitted a fresh request for rehabilitation allowance. In the course of the ensuing administrative proceedings, she underwent a medical check-up ; it was found that her disability status was at 40%. On 7 June 2012 the Budapest Pension Directorate granted a rehabilitation allowance in the monthly amount of HUF 32,550 (approximately EUR 110) for a period of 36 months. Pursuant to the new rules , this amount was calculated as corresponding to 30% of the statutory minimum wage.

The applicant ’ s appeal to the second-instance authority was dismissed on 26 October 2012 .

The applicant sought judicial review before the Salgótarján Administrative and Labour Court. This court commissioned a forensic expert to re-assess her condition. In her report dated 30 May 2013 the expert stated that the level of disability was at 45% and that the applicant was susceptible to, and fit for, rehabilitation.

At the hearing of 12 July 2013 the applicant requested the discontinuation of the proceedings because of the expert ’ s opinion and the fact that a test of sleep diagnostics, apparently necessary to complete the facts of the case, could only be scheduled in several months ’ time.

The court then discontinued the proceedings; the relevant decision became final on 4 September 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complain ed that, under the legislation enacted in 2011, her rehabilitation allowance had decreased to an amount corresponding to one ‑ third of the social benefit she had previously been entitled to. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the reduction of her benefit amounted to a discriminatory deprivation of property in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

The Government contested this view, arguing in the first place that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies since she had requested the discontinuation of the court proceedings which could have remedied her situation.

In the applicant ’ s view, the court procedure was devoid of any prospect of success.

Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides as relevant:

“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ...”

The Court note s that at the hearing of 12 July 2013 the applicant requested the discontinuation of her case, having regard to the expert ’ s opinion and the fact that one test could only be carried out at a later time. In these circumstances, the court hearing her action was effectively prevented from obtaining comprehensive evidence. The Court is therefore not convinced by the applicant ’ s argument saying that the claim was devoid of any prospect of success.

The applicant not having pursued the administrative action capable of providing redress for her situation, the application must be rejected for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 October 2015 .

André Wampach Elisabeth Steiner Deputy Registrar President