Communicated on 14 November 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 63258/17 Heinrich Hermann KLATT against Germany lodged on 24 August 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the refusal of the German authorities to grant the applicant an exemption from hunting under Article 6a of the Federal Hunting Act ( Bundesjagdgesetz ) even though the courts had accepted that the applicant opposed hunting on ethical grounds. The applicant ’ s request for an exemption concerned a property that was owned by a community of heirs, which the applicant was part of. With reference to the Court ’ s judgment in the case Herrmann v. Germany ([GC], no. 9300/07, 26 June 2012) the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts did not sufficiently take his ethical objections into account. He further invokes Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding an alleged discrimination between co-owners and sole owners of property.

QUESTIONS

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?

In particular, did the obligation to tolerate hunting on the property owned by the communities of heirs impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant and upset the fair balance between protection of the right to property and the requirements of the general interest (see Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, 26 June 2012)?

Did the applicant ’ s possibility to request a distribution of the estate ( Erbauseinandersetzung ) influence the balance between protection of the right to property and the requirements of the general interest?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his right to protection of property, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison to sole owners of property?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?