Communicated on 21 January 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 66842/13 Edit ÁYNÉ HARTL against Hungary lodged on 15 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Edit Áyné Hartl , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Pásztó .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2005 the applicant ’ s disability was established at 67%, entitling her to a disability pension ( rokkantnyugdíj ).

As of 1 May 2009 her disability was rated at 55% and she received, from that point on, a monthly rehabilitation allowance ( rehabilitációs járadék ) in the amount of 105,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 350 euros (EUR)) until 31 October 2011. This amount appears to have been statutorily calculated as 120% of the disability pension for the same disability category at the material time.

On 30 September 2011, following a request by the relevant employment centre, the Nógrád County Pension Directorate prolonged the payment of the allowance until 30 April 2012.

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

In March 2012 the applicant submitted a new request for rehabilitation allowance. In the course of the administrative proceedings, she underwent a medical check-up anew, which found that her health status was at 60% (that is, 40% disability).

By its decision of 7 June 2013 the Budapest Pension Directorate established that the applicant was entitled to a rehabilitation allowance in the amount of HUF 32,550 (approximately EUR 110) for a period of 36 months. Apparently, under the new rules this amount was calculated as corresponding to 30% of the statutory minimum wage (HUF 93,000, approximately EUR 310, at the material time). The monthly minimum amount of subsistence in 2013 wa s HUF 85,960.

The applicant appealed. The second-instance administrative authority upheld the first-instance decision on 26 October 2013.

The applicant sought judicial review of this decision before the Salgótarján Administrative and Labour Court. Following a request from the applicant, the proceedings were discontinued on 12 July 2012.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that, under the new legislation, her rehabilitation allowance, based on her present 40% disability status, decreased to an amount corresponding to approximately one-third of the social benefit she had previously been entitled to. She invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. Has the applicant been deprived of h er possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?

3. If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V ) having regard to the fact that her present entitlement is less than one third of the minimum monthly amount of subsistence ?

4 . Was the change in the applicant ’ s entitlement due to ( i ) an improvement of her health, (ii) a change in the health categories underlying her allowance or (iii) a change in the coefficient by which the allowance is statutorily calculated? In any case, what was the justification for the measure?