CASE OF ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARYCONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: July 7, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV
1. It is not so easy for me to agree with the conclusion of the Court in paragraph 155 of the judgment that “the acts complained of by the applicants concerned principally Kinizsi Bank and Mohácsi Bank, and did not directly affect the applicants’ shareholder rights as such” (having said that the impact on the latter “whilst real, was nevertheless incidental and indirect”). The Court explained its vision of the situation by separating the shareholders from the company’s governing bodies. This criterion is the first and the most important when proceeding with further examination of the present case.
2. The Court noted that the reform was aimed at, and indeed directly affected, the governing structures of the two banks, their respective general meetings of shareholders and their boards of directors. As a consequence, these bodies permanently lost some of their powers in managing the banks, in so far as such powers had been conferred to the Integration Organisation and the Savings Bank.
3. In my view, the structure of corporate governance is a model of democracy. Corporate law is highly tried and tested in this domain, regulating and analysing the functioning of executive officers, boards of directors and shareholder meetings, to set limits on their powers, strike a balance of interests and ensure the effective protection of shareholders’ rights. Normally the chief executive officer has the constitutional power to represent the company, but this power is not unlimited. Moreover, in the event of a corporate conflict (if the managers fail to act in the interests of the company), the company and shareholders are not separated from each other because their interests are presumed to be the same. Thus it is presumed that the managers (executives and members of the board) should act in favour of the company, and therefore, in favour of shareholders since their long-term interests coincide with the long-term interests of the company.
4. This theory of corporate democracy means that, within the corporate structure of the company, the general meeting of shareholders takes on a very special nature and it should be distinguished from other governing bodies. All dreams and frustrations of direct democracy are embodied in the phenomenon of the shareholders’ meeting. At their meeting the majority of shareholders take the most important decisions relating to the corporate capital in accordance with the corporate strategy. Therefore, if the Integration Act limited the powers of shareholders’ meetings, it has also directly limited the voting rights of shareholders.
5. As regards the powers of individual shareholders, each of them could normally exercise his or her rights in respect of the above-mentioned matters, notably by being involved in the decision-making process and voting. The applicants’ interests are also affected by the reform. However, given the number of shareholders that each of the two banks had, the number of shares owned by an average shareholder (paragraph 12 of the judgment) and the lack of any indication that at the relevant time the applicants as a group were bound by a shareholder agreement or other means of consolidating their fragmented influence at general meetings of the two banks, the Court found that the say of a single shareholder in the relevant matters at any given moment varied significantly depending on a number of factors and was on the whole relatively weak (paragraphs 153 and 154 of the judgment).
6. In turn, I found the latter point raised by the Court to be “relatively weak”. It does not matter how many shares belong to each applicant. They held collectively some 98.28% of shares in Kinizsi Bank and some 87.65% of shares in Mohácsi Bank which means that they enjoyed the controlling interest in the companies’ share capital. But even though each individual applicant is a small shareholder, this is not relevant to the circumstances of the case because when the shareholder’s vote joins the decision of the majority at the general meeting of shareholders the whole majority, including that small shareholder, would be confronted with the power of the Savings Bank to approve or not approve the decision of the shareholders’ meeting. Thus it could be concluded that since the votes of shareholders are united in making a corporate decision, the interests of every small shareholder are affected even if the individual shareholder has no controlling stake in the share capital and no decisive influence on the corporate decision-making process. An opposite approach would lead to discrimination against small shareholders.
7. It is therefore hard to accept that the matters to which the applicants referred as examples of restrictions on their rights were in fact powers which, under the applicable domestic law, belonged to and were exercised exclusively by the companies’ statutory bodies (see paragraph 152 of the judgment). The Court added that the exercise of those powers was subject to various procedural rules, including quorum and majority requirements. However, those factors play out in favour of the applicants, since they represented a quorum and adopted their respective decision by a majority.
8. Moreover, it would be contrary to the theory of corporate law to distinguish individual shareholders from the shareholders’ meeting acting as a governing body of the company. The shareholders exercise their governing rights, vested in their shares, through their participation at the shareholders’ meeting, where they make the most important corporate decisions. We cannot say to the individual shareholder who voted with the majority: “it was not you who made a decision, it was a shareholders’ meeting, a special statutory body of the company”. It would be wrong to say that the reform affected the general meeting of shareholders, but not the shareholders themselves (see paragraph 153 of the judgment).
9. Therefore it would be contrary to corporate law to conclude that “the Integration Act did not regulate directly, even on a temporary basis, any of the specific legal rights that the applicants as shareholders held under the applicable domestic law, or directly interfere with the exercise of these rights” (see paragraph 151 of the judgment).
10. The Court preferred to stop at the admissibility stage and not to examine the merits of the case. However, the Court should have taken into account the specificity of the complex interplay between various interests in the domain of corporate law. Interests (that is, their existence or absence) could or could not be converted into rights under corporate law. Otherwise one may reach a controversial conclusion like that of the present judgment: the Court accepted that the applicants’ interests were affected by the reform, but considered their shareholders’ rights not to be affected. In my view, there was interference: the applicants’ rights and interests were indeed affected by the reform. However, I still do not see any prospect of deciding the case in favour of the applicants, owing to a number of decisive factors which convinced me to join the majority in the present case. The Court concluded in paragraph 154: “there is nothing to indicate that the applicants’ rights as individual shareholders were as such aimed at or adversely affected by the impugned measures”. In my view, their rights were “aimed at”, but not adversely affected, as the applicants failed to prove that the interference was disproportionate.
11. The Court reiterates in paragraph 120 of the judgment that Article 34 of the Convention does not allow complaints in abstracto alleging a violation of the Convention. The applicants provided examples of corporate decisions which had been vetoed by the Savings Bank. However, on a domestic level the parties did not discuss whether the Savings Bank had gone beyond the legitimate aim to ensure the financial stability of the credit institutions and whether the impugned measures disproportionately affected the applicants’ rights, for example, to receive dividends or to appoint their candidates to executive office. The question of effective remedies therefore arises.
12. Another factor relates to the losses which could allegedly be sustained by the applicants. The Court reiterates that the consequences of an interference should lead to the losses in question. As I understand it, the existence of losses is important in order to establish the victim status of the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. However, there is no suggestion in the applicants’ submissions that the Government’s interference was in any way directly economically detrimental to the respective banks’ businesses (paragraph 102 of the judgment).
13. I agree with the latter finding, and I think it should have been examined separately without a special link to the formal shareholder rights. Share value is the core and long-term interest of any investor. All principles of corporate law are concentrated on the share value as an ultimate public interest and a legitimate aim.
14. The value of each share depends on the value of the whole business of the company; this is an additional argument to link the interests of each shareholder with measures which might lead to losses of the company. However, in the Agrotexim and Others v. Greece (24 October 1995, Series A no. 330 ‑ A) judgment the Court refused to accept the mere loss of value of the shares as the only decisive factor in examining the question as to what constituted an act “directed at the rights of the shareholders as such”. In this connection it has considered whether the likely effects of the measure in question not only concerned the applicant’s interests in the company, but were directly decisive for his or her individual rights (see paragraph 127 of the judgment).
15. The Grand Chamber could have used the opportunity to correct this position, which could be applicable in a very specific situation. For example, in the Agrotexim and Others case the share value had fallen due to the insolvency of the company, which then went through bankruptcy proceedings. As regards the corporate status in general, it would be an excessive burden for the shareholders to prove separately that the impugned measures affected the share value, their individual rights and their interests in the company as proposed above. As regards the present case, the applicants did not prove that they had sustained a loss of share value owing to the impugned reform, and it was enough to make a decision about their victim status.
16. Finally, the Court honestly recognised that the cooperative credit institutions had lost their autonomy as a result of the reform which was aimed at and indeed directly affected the governing structures of the two banks, their respective general meetings of shareholders and their boards of directors. As a consequence, these bodies permanently lost some of their powers in managing the banks in so far as such powers had been conferred to the Integration Organisation and the Savings Bank (see paragraph 153 of the judgment). The Court noted that the banks were faced with a choice between remaining members of the Organisation and leaving it. The choice of leaving implied the need to re-apply for a new banking licence and also, among other things, the requirement to raise the banks’ own capital, whereas the option of remaining as a member required the banks to agree to a significant loss of their operational autonomy (see paragraph 148 of the judgment).
17. One can see the logic in the whole idea of the Integration: a consolidation of the assets and capital without imposing an obligation on each member of the organisation to raise the capital in order to ensure financial stability. Indeed, it is a business model aimed at managing the microcredit activity of small cooperative credit institutions, and the reform was not limited to imposing formal capital adequacy requirements on the credit institutions, but was intended to help determine their business strategy. In particular, the Savings Bank is empowered to adopt rules to be complied with by cooperative credit institutions on the following matters: (a) the detailed rules of risk management, including credit authorisation, risk monitoring, deposit allocation, cash management and investment policy, rules of evaluation and depreciation and rules on additional specific capital requirements in addition to laws, regulations and other binding rules; (b) the applicable business policy; (c) the joint marketing activity; and (d) the establishment of an integrated IT system (see paragraph 69 of the judgment).
18. I presume that the State could have the right to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The proportionality of the interference, however, could be challenged by the fact that such organisation of a financial market is unique, and normally financial security is achieved by capital adequacy rules without interference with the ordinary business of credit institutions. There is an alternative in deciding how to regulate microcredit activity with relatively low equity capital: by limiting the scope of banking operations. Moreover, it is a widespread practice to set up capital requirements subject to the services of each type of financial institution. However, I am not in a position to make a decision about the proportionality of the interference because of a lack of information as to whether the above issues had been raised by the applicants and examined by the competent authorities in the domestic proceedings.
Appendix
No.
Name of applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Name of the bank
concerned
1.
Józsefné Albert
17/04/1935
Szentjakabfa
Kinizsi Bank
2.
Zoltán Agg
26/07/1975
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
3.
Erzsébet Ambergné
Schumacher
(heir: Erzsébet Amberg)
11/04/1948
Nagyvázsony
Kinizsi Bank
4.
Anita Auth (changed her name from Anita Ritzlné Auth)
27/02/1971
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
5.
József Auth
02/12/1943
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
6.
Józsefné Auth
12/09/1945
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
7.
Katalin Bali
31/05/1941
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
8.
Gábor Barta
11/11/1951
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
9.
Antalné Baumgartner
01/12/1951
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
10.
József Antal Beck
27/07/1954
Babarc
Mohácsi Bank
11.
József Becker
03/07/1961
Babarc
Mohácsi Bank
12.
Mihály Belvaracz
13/07/1939
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
13.
Józsefné Bicsérdi
22/06/1947
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
14.
Ádámné Boda
19/11/1949
Kisnyárád
Mohácsi Bank
15.
Márta Bogdán
22/08/1958
Zánka
Kinizsi Bank
16.
Endre Bókay
25/05/1954
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
17.
Istvánné Bokros
24/12/1951
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
19.
István Bubreg
08/11/1942
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
20.
Istvánné Bubreg
26/01/1946
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
21.
Krisztina Bubregné Haris
28/08/1977
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
22.
Eszter Bucher
14/11/1977
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
23.
Tamás Bucher
30/03/1986
Szombathely
Mohácsi Bank
24.
Gyula Csanádi
(heir: László Gyula Csanádi)
23/12/1940
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
25.
László Gyula Csanádi
28/04/1967
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
26.
Ferenc Cseh
10/12/1947
Szentantalfa
Kinizsi Bank
27.
Eszter Csizmadia
22/05/1968
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
28.
Gergely Dárdai
09/05/1952
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
29.
Gergelyné Dárdai
31/07/1956
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
30.
Istvánné Dávid
12/02/1959
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
31.
Gyula Dombai
17/11/1939
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
32.
Imre László Domonkos
05/03/1962
Keszü
Mohácsi Bank
33.
Dezső Ejhinger
23/09/1935
Ajka
Kinizsi Bank
34.
Gellért Éva
08/10/1954
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
35.
Endre Bertalan Fábián
22/04/1951
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
36.
Istvánné Facskó
17/08/1935
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
37.
László Faddi
23/08/1961
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
38.
Mária Márta Fekete
17/12/1940
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
39.
József Attiláné Irényi
03/04/1955
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
40.
György Fischer
28/03/1956
Dunaszekcső
Mohácsi Bank
41.
Gábor Flódung
22/03/1970
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
42.
Bence Flórián
18/03/1983
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
43.
Dóra Flórián
22/12/1978
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
44.
Gyulané Flórián
(heir: Gyula György Flórián)
16/05/1916
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
45.
Gyula György Flórián
10/12/1943
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
46.
István Flórián Fodor
11/08/1946
Tótvázsony
Kinizsi Bank
47.
András Folbert
23/04/1959
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
48.
József Frischmann
12/10/1951
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
49.
András Gász
(heirs: Judit Terézia Ádámné Gász, Andrea Domokosné Gász, Andrásné Gász)
04/09/1940
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
50.
Andrásné Gász
17/09/1942
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
51.
Judit Gergely
22/12/1964
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
52.
Tibor Gergely
16/04/1960
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
53.
Orsolya Erzsébet Gilly
05/03/1964
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
54.
Péter István Ginter
20/08/1938
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
55.
Györgyi Grób
09/07/1952
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
56.
Éva Irén Gyimesi
01/12/1962
Bonyhád
Mohácsi Bank
57.
Jánosné Gyimesi
05/02/1942
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
58.
József János Hadra
03/01/1959
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
59.
Zsolt Hafner
15/05/1970
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
60.
István Hagen
06/04/1972
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
61.
János István Hagen
20/08/1938
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
62.
Ernő Harcz
06/04/1944
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
63.
Zoltán Elek Hardi
07/10/1954
Öcs
Kinizsi Bank
64.
Károly Hegyi
12/05/1942
Ajka
Kinizsi Bank
65.
Zoltán András Helilig
01/03/1956
Tótvázsony
Kinizsi Bank
66.
Hanna Heirich
05/07/1982
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
67.
József Heirich
26/03/1962
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
68.
Józsefné Heirich
27/09/1956
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
69.
József Hellebrand
19/09/1961
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
70.
Józsefné Hellebrand
17/04/1965
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
71.
János Hengl
13/11/1954
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
72.
József Higli
16/10/1937
Balatoncsicsó
Kinizsi Bank
73.
Györgyné Hoffmann
23/02/1932
Babarc
Mohácsi Bank
74.
Józsefné Holocsi
17/09/1943
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
75.
Etele Péterné Horváth
21/01/1959
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
76.
Judit Hunyadiné Tóth
03/12/1955
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
77.
László György Huppert
09/10/1955
Majs
Mohácsi Bank
78.
Konrád Hüttner
31/05/1951
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
79.
Bence Ferenc Illés
12/12/1989
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
80.
Zsuzsanna Illésné Hengl
19/01/1964
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
81.
László Sándor Jónás
(heir: Glória Hoffmanné Jónás, Robin Jónás)
16/10/1949
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
82.
Attila Jordán
03/05/1970
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
83.
Klára Katalin Jordánné Kovács
09/12/1974
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
84.
Krisztina Kresz
(changed her name from Krisztina Jordanne Kresz)
16/01/1970
Kozármisleny
Mohácsi Bank
85.
Béla Juhos [1]
29/12/1940
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
86.
Béláné Juhos [2]
24/08/1942
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
87.
Erzsébet Jung
10/12/1954
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
88.
Ferenc Kaiser
18/03/1948
Székelyszabar
Mohácsi Bank
89.
Anita Kajtár
26/07/1972
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
90.
Csaba Kajtár
31/10/1974
Pécsvárad
Mohácsi Bank
91.
István Kaponyi
09/06/1942
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
92.
Kálmánné Karádi
26/11/1962
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
93.
László Józsefné Kern
27/03/1955
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
94.
Attila Keszler
04/05/1969
Romonya
Mohácsi Bank
95.
Gyöngyi Anna Kettné
Rott
13/05/1963
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
96.
Gyuláné Kincses
13/05/1926
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
97.
Klára Ilona Kincses
25/05/1953
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
98.
Károly Kis
07/04/1953
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
99.
István Kiss
17/08/1947
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
100.
Sándor Kiss-Sebök
22/07/1946
Balatonfüred
Kinizsi Bank
101.
Zoltán György Kliebert
29/09/1952
Babarc
Mohácsi Bank
102.
Attila Kostyák
01/04/1979
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
103.
Gábor Kovács
12/11/1945
Szentantalfa
Kinizsi Bank
104.
Gábor Attila Kovács
22/11/1979
Szentantalfa
Kinizsi Bank
105.
Gáborné Kovács
14/10/1952
Szentantalfa
Kinizsi Bank
106.
János Kovács
25/08/1940
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
107.
Miklós Kovács
(heir: Miklósné Kovács)
13/12/1951
Görcsönydoboka
Mohácsi Bank
108.
Andrásné Kraft
22/09/1949
Himesháza
Mohácsi Bank
109.
Ádám Krammer
30/08/1953
Bátaszék
Mohácsi Bank
110.
Rita Kultné Mátyás
09/03/1956
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
111.
Sándor Kurucz
13/11/1965
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
112.
Antal Lakatos
06/08/1963
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
113.
Antal Lakatos ifj.
13/11/1986
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
114.
Balázs Lakatos
04/09/1990
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
115.
Eszter Lakatos
15/07/1985
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
116.
Éva Lakatos
24/11/1960
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
117.
Judit Lakatos
17/12/1986
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
118.
Péter Lakatos
29/06/1985
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
119.
László Antalné Lesching
10/09/1949
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
120.
János Link
28/06/1960
Geresdlak
Mohácsi Bank
121.
Ádám Lovász
17/04/1992
Bóly
Mohácsi Bank
122.
Ildikó Anna Lovász
13/06/1964
Bóly
Mohácsi Bank
123.
József Lovász
26/04/1961
Bóly
Mohácsi Bank
124.
József Markovics
16/03/1943
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
125.
Lázárné Márton
28/07/1951
Gárdony
Mohácsi Bank
126.
Attila Vince Mátrai
22/12/1953
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
127.
Zoltán Mezey
19/07/1947
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
128.
Lajos Mód
10/02/1942
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
129.
Károly Molnár
29/01/1945
Dunaszekcső
Mohácsi Bank
130.
Mártonné Molnár
21/02/1953
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
131.
János Móró
17/03/1954
Zánka
Kinizsi Bank
132.
Jánosné Móró
25/10/1956
Zánka
Kinizsi Bank
133.
János Múth
(heir: Edina Kollárné Múth, Jánosné Múth, Melinda Schneiderné Múth)
22/04/1952
Geresdlak
Mohácsi Bank
134.
Ambrus Müller
01/12/1938
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
135.
Katalin Müllerlei (changed her name from Katalin Purmann Györgyné)
04/01/1958
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
136.
Béláné Nagy
11/02/1952
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
137.
Emilné Nagy
26/02/1936
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
138.
Gáborné Nagy
22/11/1938
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
139.
Lajos Nagy
26/10/1939
Kapolcs
Kinizsi Bank
140.
László József Nagy
30/04/1957
Nagyvázsony
Kinizsi Bank
141.
Norbert Nagy
08/04/1982
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
142.
Sándor Imréné Nagy
26/09/1955
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
143.
István Német Varga
13/02/1962
Homorúd
Mohácsi Bank
144.
Gabriella Nyiröné
Panghy
22/10/1960
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
145.
István Gábor Nyul
22/09/1968
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
146.
István János Nyul
24/12/1940
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
147.
István Jánosné Nyul
28/12/1938
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
148.
Zoltán István Nyul
17/02/1967
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
149.
Róbert Paizs
20/01/1978
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
150.
Zoltán Pakuzsa
29/08/1954
Székelyszabar
Mohácsi Bank
151.
Endre Kálmán Pap
10/07/1941
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
152.
Endre Tamás Pap
26/04/1972
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
153.
Zita Mária Pap
21/07/1974
Budapest
Kinizsi Bank
154.
Gábor Papp
03/10/1972
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
155.
Gáborné Papp
28/08/1979
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
156.
László Pável
21/05/1963
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
157.
Gábor Pávkovics
11/10/1969
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
158.
Tamás Pávkovics
31/07/1968
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
159.
Erika Anna
Pávkovicsné Hegedüs
10/08/1969
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
160.
Gitta Szilvia Pávkovicsné
Szücs
28/01/1971
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
161.
Gyuláné Péter [3]
15/03/1959
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
162.
József Péter
24/02/1939
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
163.
Alexandra Pethes
21/10/1989
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
164.
Csaba Pethes
25/06/1985
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
165.
Csaba Sándor Pethes
01/06/1958
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
166.
Csaba Sándorné Pethes
19/08/1967
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
167.
Balázs Pethö
17/03/1977
Balatonfüred
Kinizsi Bank
168.
Csaba Pethö
09/06/1979
Balatonfüred
Kinizsi Bank
169.
Jenő Pethö
24/12/1954
Balatonfüred
Kinizsi Bank
170.
Ágnes Pethöné Schulcz
23/08/1956
Balatonfüred
Kinizsi Bank
171.
Éva Mária Petz
01/03/1961
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
172.
Balázs Pintér
04/04/1977
Balatonfüred
Kinizsi Bank
173.
Péter Pintér
03/05/1975
Aszófő
Kinizsi Bank
174.
Sándor Pintér
21/03/1945
Aszófő
Kinizsi Bank
175.
Renáta Ildikó
Pongráczné Kovács
25/11/1977
Szentantalfa
Kinizsi Bank
176.
Edina Zsuzsanna Rappál
12/11/1962
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
177.
Benjámin Ritzl
11/12/1991
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
178.
Jánosné Ritzl
11/03/1957
Görcsönydoboka
Mohácsi Bank
179.
József Ritzl
29/06/1968
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
180.
Albert Rosta
15/10/1951
Ajka
Kinizsi Bank
181.
Szilvia Sajnovicsné
Papp
09/08/1973
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
182.
András Schaffer
27/06/1984
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
183.
Judit Schaffer
04/09/1987
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
184.
Róbert Schaffer
23/08/1954
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
185.
Ferenc János Schauer
03/10/1948
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
186.
András Schmalcz
30/11/1984
Budapest
Mohácsi Bank
187.
Ádámné Schmidt
04/08/1952
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
188.
Éva Schmidtné Mári
03/05/1971
Dunaszekcső
Mohácsi Bank
189.
Dezső Schwoy
26/10/1960
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
190.
Zsolt Dénesné Simonyi
31/01/1950
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
191.
Ákos Stadler
20/02/1979
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
192.
Emese Gabriella Stadler
15/05/1969
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
193.
Ferenc János Stadler
10/07/1946
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
194.
Gábor Stadler
26/05/1970
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
195.
László Steixner
26/05/1946
Szentjakabfa
Kinizsi Bank
196.
Jánosné Stolcz
23/01/1959
Geresdlak
Mohácsi Bank
197.
Antal Strenner
12/07/1963
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
198.
Zoltánné Strenner
04/10/1935
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
199.
István Svéger
27/08/1952
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
200.
Lajos Szalay
28/01/1939
Balatonszőlős
Kinizsi Bank
201.
Zoltán Tamás Szark
11/01/1967
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
202.
Béláné Szekeres
08/11/1946
Révfülöp
Kinizsi Bank
203.
Károly Péter Szirom [4]
02/04/1953
Pécs
Mohácsi Bank
204.
József Szombati
10/01/1943
Nagyvázsony
Kinizsi Bank
205.
Józsefné Szombati
27/01/1949
Nagyvázsony
Kinizsi Bank
206.
János Tiborné Takácz
28/10/1953
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
207.
László Takácz
02/04/1964
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
208.
Ferencné Takács Nagy
27/04/1964
Somberek
Mohácsi Bank
209.
Marianna Takácsné Higli
13/09/1966
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
210.
Katalin Takácsné Obert
08/10/1964
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
211.
Jánosné Till
19/01/1953
Véménd
Mohácsi Bank
212.
Gábor Tamás Torjay
03/12/1969
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
213.
Gábor Tóth
03/02/1955
Révfülöp
Kinizsi Bank
214.
Gabriella Tóthné Nyirö
13/07/1981
Szekszárd
Mohácsi Bank
215.
József Trapp
21/01/1957
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
216.
Józsefné Trapp
17/04/1960
Palotabozsok
Mohácsi Bank
217.
József Troszt
23/11/1961
Görcsönydoboka
Mohácsi Bank
218.
Gabriella Tuttiné Merkler
28/09/1967
Kölked
Mohácsi Bank
219.
Lászlóné Vajda
25/09/1959
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
220.
LÅ‘rinc Varga
25/03/1951
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
221.
György Sándor Varga
29/07/1948
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
222.
Péter Ferenc Varga
12/06/1952
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
223.
Antalné Várhegyi
17/01/1947
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
224.
Gyula Vass
23/09/1951
Zánka
Kinizsi Bank
225.
Gyuláné Vass
27/11/1954
Zánka
Kinizsi Bank
226.
László Veiner
09/05/1980
Zánka
Kinizsi Bank
227.
Tivadar Villányi
29/04/1958
Veszprém
Kinizsi Bank
228.
György János Werner
29/09/1950
Mohács
Mohácsi Bank
229.
János Werner
14/04/1954
Himesháza
Mohácsi Bank
230.
Jánosné Werner
09/04/1959
Himesháza
Mohácsi Bank
231.
István Zab
21/04/1963
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
232.
Orsolya Zeiler
13/01/1973
Romonya
Mohácsi Bank
233.
Mihály Zömbik
24/07/1954
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
234.
Mihály Zömbik ifj.
25/04/1980
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
235.
Nóra Zömbik
26/03/1987
Nemesvámos
Kinizsi Bank
236.
Györgyné Zsifkovics
03/03/1939
Lánycsók
Mohácsi Bank
237.
János Zsoldos
17/11/1937
Balatonszepezd
Kinizsi Bank
[1] By a letter received on 29 April 2019 the applicant has informed the Court about the decision to withdraw the case
[2] By a letter received on 29 April 2019 the applicant has informed the Court about the decision to withdraw the case
[3] By a letter received on 29 April 2019 the applicant has informed the Court about the decision to withdraw the case
[4] By a letter received on 29 April 2019 the applicant has informed the Court about the decision to withdraw the case