Communicated on 6 November 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 51355/17 MAHIR CITYPOSTER KFT against Hungary lodged on 12 July 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mahir Cityposter Kft , is a company registered in Hungary. It is represented before the Court by Mr György Magyar, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The circumstances of the case

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

2. In 2006 the applicant concluded a lease agreement for 25 years with the Municipality of Budapest. The agreement allowed the applicant to offer for rent advertising space on dedicated columns situated in public places in Budapest.

3. On 22 October 2015 the Municipality of Budapest terminated the lease agreement. The applicant lodged an action claiming that the lease agreement was terminated unlawfully. On 15 September 2016 the Budapest High Court found for the applicant.

4. On 12 December 2016 a modification of Act no. LXXIV of 2016 on the protection of the townscape was proposed. After accelerated proceedings in Parliament, the amending law was promulgated on 19 December 2016 and entered into force on 18 January 2017.

5. On appeal, on 28 February 2017 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment delivered by the Budapest High Court.

6. The Government issued Government Decree no. 104/2017 (28 April) on the execution of the statutory regulations contained in Act no. LXXIV of 2016 as regards advertising installations. The Government Decree entered into force on 28 May 2017.

7. According to the modified Act, lease agreements in force at the time of the entry into force of the Government Decree shall be re-evaluated by the municipalities which may commence the modification of such lease agreements based on the rules established by the new legislation. Those advertising columns whose use is not in line with the new regulation may operate up to 31 December 2020.

8. As provided for by the Government Decree, in the transitional period advertising columns may be installed and used only by local municipalities to disseminate cultural programs. Even though that is the only manner in which the applicant ’ s advertising columns may be used, the Government Decree forbids the placement of advertisement on the columns by glue.

COMPLAINTS

9. The applicant complains that t he modification of the Act and the issuance of the Decree that resulted in the restriction of use of the advertising columns and the termination of the lease agreement before the lapse of the contracted period amounted to an unjustified interference with its right to access to a court and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The applicant relies on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?

If so, did the applicant have access to a court in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd an d J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 61, ECHR 2007 ‑ III)? If so, was such interference justified?

3. Did the applicant have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?