Search
document

MHZ KFT v. HUNGARY and 10 other applications

Doc ref: 47872/15;49750/15;52387/15;52428/15;55024/15;55189/15;55199/15;61673/15;2262/16;3948/16;18396/16 • ECHR ID: 001-171873

Document date: February 7, 2017

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 5

MHZ KFT v. HUNGARY and 10 other applications

Doc ref: 47872/15;49750/15;52387/15;52428/15;55024/15;55189/15;55199/15;61673/15;2262/16;3948/16;18396/16 • ECHR ID: 001-171873

Document date: February 7, 2017

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 7 February 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 47872/15 MHZ KFT against Hungary and 10 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the creation of a new register of liquidators, which, unlike the previous one, limits the number of companies potentially enrolled. As a result, several liquidators who had been pursuing that activity for a long time, but whose application for the new list was rejected, lost their licences. They challenged in court both the result of the new tender and their deletions from the list. They successfully obtained stays of execution of their deletions. However, the interim measures adopted by the domestic courts, although they were confirmed on appeal and thus became final and executory, remained ineffective.

The applicants complain that the authorities ’ failure to comply with the stays of execution amounted to a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

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

2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement according to which final, binding judicial decisions cannot remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see, among other authorities, Hornsby v. Greece , 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II, and Pini and Others v. Romania , nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, § 176, ECHR 2004 ‑ V (extracts))?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the authorities ’ failure to comply with the stays of execution and on account of the fact that the applicants are unable to pursue their previous activity notwithstanding the final interim measures? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , AGOSI v. the United Kingdom , 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia , no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010; and B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia , no. 42079/12, §§ 43 ‑ 44, 17 January 2017) ?

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

47872/15

17/09/2015

MHZ KFT

Szolnok

András FODOR

49750/15

29/09/2015

CITY INVEST KFT

Győr

Péter KÁRPÁTI

52387/15

29/09/2015

CONCUR BEFEKTETÉSI KFT

Budapest

Péter KÁRPÁTI

52428/15

16/10/2015

198. SZ. JURIS-INVEST KFT

Berettyóújfalu

Antal KÖKÉNYESI

55024/15

28/10/2015

HUNYADI VÁLSÁGMENEDZSER ÉS FELSZÁMOLÓ ZRT

Budapest

Ágnes HAJDÚ

55189/15

30/10/2015

PRO-CREDITOR KFT

Budapest

László FARKAS

55199/15

27/10/2015

CSABAHOLDING SZOLGÁLTATÓ KFT

Budapest

László FARKAS

61673/15

08/12/2015

FACTOR KFT

Budapest

Artúr TAMÁSI

2262/16

23/12/2015

HUBERTUS PÉNZÜGYI GAZDASÁGI TANÁCSADÓ KFT

Pécs

Artúr TAMÁSI

3948/16

23/12/2015

PÁTRIA CONSULT ZMRT

Budapest

Artúr TAMÁSI

18396/16

25/03/2016

DELTA NOVA FELSZÁMOLÓ ÉS TANÁCSADÓ KFT

Tata

Artúr TAMÁSI

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant