JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES NUSSBERGER, HIRVELÄ, BIANKU, YUDKIVSKA, MØSE, LEMMENS AND O’LEARY

1. We regret that we cannot share the view of the majority that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In our opinion, that provision is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, since we are unable to find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, we consider, unlike the majority, that it is necessary to express ourselves separately on the issue of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

A. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

1. General principles

2. It should be stressed at the outset that this part of our opinion has been drafted together with Judge Wojtyczek. Given that our interpretation of the general principles deriving from the Court’s established case-law on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is significantly different to that set out in the plurality opinion forming the judgment of the Court, it is necessary to develop our analysis of the jurisprudence in a comprehensive way, and not merely to limit ourselves to criticising those parts of the judgment, specific to the present case, with which we disagree.

(a) The scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in general

3. The concept of “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law. Certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000 ‑ I; Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 98, ECHR 2002 ‑ X; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 63, ECHR 2007 ‑ I; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 171, ECHR 2012; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).

4. The Court has acknowledged in its case-law the relevance of the notion of “legitimate expectations” with respect to the concept of “possessions” (see the case-law starting with Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland , 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium , 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332). Pursuant to the Court’s established case-law, a “legitimate expectation” does not constitute an interest that in itself is protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. According to this case-law, “no such expectation could come into play in the absence of an ‘asset’ falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1” (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 48, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; and Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 65, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX).

5. In a series of cases, the Court has found that the applicants did not have a “legitimate expectation” in circumstances where it could not be said that they had a currently enforceable claim that was reasonably established (see Kopecký , cited above, § 49, and the cases referred to in paragraphs 49 ‑ 51 of the judgment). The Court’s case-law thus does not contemplate the existence of a “genuine dispute” or an “arguable claim” as a criterion for determining whether there is a “legitimate expectation” protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kopecký , cited above, § 52, and Maurice , cited above, § 66). On the contrary, where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, the Court takes the view that it may be regarded as an “asset” only where it has a sufficient basis in domestic law, for example, where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming its existence (see Kopecký , cited above, §§ 49 and 52; Maurice , cited above, § 66; Anheuser-Busch Inc. , cited above, § 65; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007 ‑ II; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano , cited above, § 173; and Parrillo , cited above, § 213).

6. This principle has also been formulated in various other ways throughout the Court’s case-law. By way of example, in a number of cases the Court examined, respectively, whether the applicants had “a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable” (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 74, ECHR 2002 ‑ VII); whether they demonstrated the existence of “an assertable right under domestic law to a welfare benefit” (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2005 ‑ X); or whether the persons concerned satisfied the “legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits” (see Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012).

7. In some cases the “legitimate expectation” may involve situations where the persons concerned are entitled to rely on the fact that a specific legal act will not be retrospectively invalidated to their detriment (see Kopecký , cited above, § 47, and Noreikienė and Noreika v. Lithuania , no. 17285/08, § 36, 24 November 2015). Such legal acts can consist, for example, of a contract (see Stretch v. the United Kingdom , no. 44277/98, § 35, 24 June 2003), an administrative decision granting an advantage or recognising a right (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others , cited above, § 51; Moskal v. Poland , no. 10373/05, § 45, 15 September 2009; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010), or a judicial decision (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova , cited above, § 73, and Velikoda v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43331/12, § 20, 3 June 2014). In such cases the “legitimate expectation” is based on a reasonably justified reliance on a legal act which has a sound legal basis and which bears on property rights (see Kopecký , cited above, § 47).

8. In other cases the “legitimate expectations” may simply relate to claims arising out of certain situations which are governed by a provision of domestic law. Where the applicant can argue, for example on the basis of established case-law, that his or her claim is currently enforceable and will be determined in his or her favour (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova , cited above, § 72, and Maurice , cited above, § 66), in accordance with domestic law, this claim qualifies as an “asset” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kopecký , cited above, § 48, referring to Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others , cited above, § 31).

9. A legitimate expectation must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova , cited above, § 73, and Kopecký , cited above, § 49). The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived or that the survival of an old property right which it had been impossible to exercise effectively can be recognised cannot be considered a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII, and the cases referred to; see also Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova , cited above, § 69; Kopecký , cited above, § 35 (c); and Fabris , cited above, § 50).

10. In short, where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, it may be regarded as an “asset” attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 where it is based on a specific legal act or where it has a sufficient basis in domestic law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it. By way of contrast, no legitimate expectation can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant’s submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký , cited above, § 50; Anheuser-Busch Inc. , cited above, § 65; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano , cited above, § 173).

(b) The scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in regard to social benefits

11. In the modern, democratic State, many individuals are, for all or part of their lives, completely dependent for survival on social security and welfare benefits. Many domestic legal systems recognise that such individuals require a degree of certainty and security, and provide for benefits to be paid – subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of eligibility – as of right (see Stec and Others (dec.), cited above, § 51; Moskal , cited above, § 39; and Wieczorek v. Poland , no. 18176/05, § 65, 8 December 2009).

12. The general principles relating to the scope of application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to cases concerning social security and welfare benefits (see Stec and Others (dec.), cited above, § 54; Moskal , cited above, § 38; and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, ECHR 2011). In particular, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension or social benefit of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland , no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX, and Wieczorek , cited above, § 57). The right to an old-age pension or any social benefit in a particular amount is not included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001; Pravednaya v. Russia , no. 69529/01, § 37, 18 November 2004; and Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 30, 1 September 2015).

13. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 places no restriction on the Contracting States’ freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social-security or pension scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme. However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a welfare benefit or pension – whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions – that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 but it does so only for persons satisfying its requirements (see Stec and Others (dec.), cited above, § 54; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, ECHR 2009; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010; and Stummer , cited above, § 82).

14. Within the member States of the Council of Europe, there exists a wide range of social-security benefits which are guaranteed in the form of subjective rights. Benefits are funded in a large variety of ways: some are paid for by contributions to a specific fund; some depend on a claimant’s contribution record; many are paid for out of general taxation on the basis of a statutorily defined status (see Stec and Others (dec.), cited above, § 50).

15. In certain circumstances, the making of compulsory contributions, for example to a pension fund or a social insurance scheme, may create a property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 even before the contributor fulfils all the conditions to actually receive the pension or other benefit. This is the case when there is a direct link between the level of contributions and the benefits awarded (see Stec and Others (dec.), cited above, § 43) or in other words, when the making of a contribution creates a property right in a portion of the pension fund (see T. v. Sweden , no. 10671/83, Commission decision of 4 March 1985, Decisions and Reports 42, at p. 229). In such a situation, the contributor has an enforceable claim to a share in the fund.

16. This situation is different from the situation where a person makes contributions without there being a direct link between the level of contributions and any benefits awarded. It is true that the Court has held that the right to a pension or other benefit which is based on employment can be assimilated to a property right when special contributions have been paid (see T. v. Sweden , cited above, and Klein v. Austria , no. 57028/00, §§ 42-45, 3 March 2011). It is to be noted that in such a system the payment of contributions is a pre-condition for receiving the benefit. In other words, there is no entitlement to the benefit where such contributions have not been made. However, the benefit will only be granted to persons who have not only made contributions, but who also satisfy the other conditions laid down in domestic law (see, with respect to contributions made to an unemployment insurance fund, generating a right to emergency assistance when the entitlement to unemployment benefit is exhausted, Gaygusuz v. Austria , 16 September 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV; see also Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v. France (dec.), nos. 40832/98, 40833/98 and 40906/98, 27 April 1999). In such a situation, the contributor has an enforceable claim only once he or she fulfils all the conditions required to obtain the benefit.

17. In this respect, the fact that a person has entered into and forms part of a State social-security system (even a compulsory one) does not necessarily mean that that system cannot be changed either as to the conditions of eligibility of payment or as to the quantum of the benefit or pension (see Richardson , cited above, § 17, and Damjanac v. Croatia , no. 52943/10, § 86, 24 October 2013; see also Müller v. Austria , no. 5849/72, Commission’s report of 1 October 1975, DR 3, p. 25, §§ 30 ‑ 31; Skorkiewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 39860/98, 1 June 1999; and Kjartan Ásmundsson , cited above, § 39). Indeed, the Court has accepted the possibility of amendments to social-security legislation which may be adopted in response to societal changes and evolving views on the categories of persons who need social assistance (see Wieczorek , cited above, § 67).

18. Where a person fulfils the requirements to receive a social-security or welfare benefit – whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions –, he or she has a claim that constitutes an “asset” protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, a contrario, Bladh v. Sweden (dec.), no. 46125/06, 10 November 2009). It should be noted that such a claim is enforceable only as long as the entitlement exists, that is, as long as the person fulfils the requirements laid down in domestic law as it stands (see Velikoda , cited above, § 23).

19. With respect to the loss of an entitlement to a social-security or welfare benefit, two situations have to be distinguished.

20. Where, on the one hand, the amount of the benefit is reduced or discontinued because of a change in the applicable rules, this constitutes an interference with possessions, which then requires to be justified under the general rule of Article 1, first paragraph, first sentence, of Protocol No. 1 (see Kjartan Ásmundsson , cited above, § 40; Rasmussen v. Poland , no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009; Wieczorek , cited above, § 57; Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 25 October 2011; Richardson , cited above, § 17; Grudić v. Serbia , no. 31925/08, § 72, 17 April 2012; Khoniakina v. Georgia , no. 17767/08, § 72, 19 June 2012; Damjanac , cited above, §§ 85 and 89; and Velikoda , cited above, § 25).

21. An important consideration in the assessment under the latter provision will be whether the applicant’s right to derive benefits from the social-security or welfare scheme in question has been interfered with in a manner resulting in the impairment of the essence of his or her social security or welfare rights (see Kjartan Ásmundsson , cited above, § 39; Wieczorek , cited above, § 57; Valkov and Others , cited above, § 91; and Khoniakina , cited above, § 71). However, the fair-balance test cannot be based solely on the amount or percentage of the reduction suffered, in the abstract. All the relevant elements of the case will have to be taken in account (see Stefanetti and Others v. Italy , nos. 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21822/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, and 21870/10, § 59, 15 April 2014). This includes the nature of the benefit taken away, in particular whether it has originated in a special advantageous pension scheme available only to certain groups of persons (see Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.), nos. 15189/10 and others, § 137, 14 May 2013; da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 62235/12 and 57725/12, § 24, 8 October 2013; and Da Silva Carvalho Rico , cited above, § 42).

22. Where, on the other hand, the person concerned ceases to satisfy the legal conditions laid down in the existing, unchanged domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits or pension, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Rasmussen , cited above, § 71; Richardson , cited above, § 17; and Damjanac , cited above, §§ 86 and 88). Indeed, the entitlement to a given benefit or pension can change with the evolution of the individual situation of the beneficiary. The Court has stated in this respect, with regard to disability pensions, that it is permissible for States to take measures to reassess the medical condition of persons receiving such pensions with a view to establishing whether they continue to be unfit to work, provided that such reassessment is in conformity with the law and attended by sufficient procedural guarantees (see Wieczorek , cited above, § 67, and Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland , no. 30614/06, §§ 50-51, 26 July 2011).

2. Application of the principles to the present case

23. Turning to the application of the general principles to the facts of the present case, we agree with the majority on the starting point: the applicant cannot complain about an allegedly “continuing situation” originating in the discontinuation of her disability pension on 1 February 2010. Like the majority, we believe that the discontinuation of the disability pension was an instantaneous act, and that the final decision in this respect was taken by the Nyíregyháza Labour Court on 1 April 2011. As a result of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court is precluded from examining the decision of 1 February 2010 and the subsequent proceedings up to the judgment of 1 April 2011, and is obliged to limit its examination to the decisions relating to the applicant’s later requests for a disability pension, submitted on 20 February 2012 and 15 August 2012 (see paragraphs 90-91 of the judgment).

24. We note that between 1 May 1975 and 14 July 1997 the applicant made contributions to the social-security scheme (see paragraph 10 of the judgment). However, it is not alleged that she thus had acquired any claim to an identifiable share in a social-security fund. We therefore proceed on the basis that the payment of contributions was merely one of the pre-conditions for receiving a disability pension which became relevant once she satisfied the other conditions laid down in domestic law (see § 16 above). Unlike the majority (see paragraph 105 of the judgment), we thus do not consider that the applicant’s contributions created a property right protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

25. We further note, like the majority, that the system of disability allowances in question, both in its pre-2012 and its current form, essentially operated on the basis of two cumulative eligibility criteria: (i) a “health condition”, under which the benefit was payable only to persons whose health and employment status so required, and (ii) a “contribution condition”, which required the fulfilment of a certain service period or a period covered by social-security contributions (see paragraph 93 of the judgment).

26. When in 2001 the applicant was granted a disability benefit (see paragraph 11 of the judgment), the relevant authorities considered that she met both the health condition and the contribution condition applicable pursuant to Act no. LXXXI of 1997 on Social-Security Pensions. That decision generated a legitimate expectation that she would receive the benefit on a monthly basis, so long as she continued to meet the two conditions and in particular the health condition.

27. The period during which the applicant received the disability benefit lasted until 1 February 2010. On that date, the relevant pension insurance authority found, on the basis of a new methodology for assessing the degree of health impairment, that the applicant had a disability of only 40%. It concluded that the applicant no longer fulfilled the health condition established by law, which had remained unchanged, and therefore withdrew her entitlement to a disability pension (see paragraphs 12-14 of the judgment). As indicated previously, the applicant’s challenges to this decision were ultimately dismissed by the Nyíregyháza Labour Court on 1 April 2011 (see paragraphs 15-16 of the judgment). In consequence, in accordance with the provisions of domestic law then in force, the applicant was not entitled to and did not receive any disability pension as of 1 February 2010.

28. From the moment that her entitlement to a disability pension was withdrawn, the applicant could no longer rely on a specific legal act to support the legitimate expectation that she would receive a disability pension. She could of course rely on the legislation in force at that point, but since she did not fulfil all of the conditions to receive a disability benefit she had no enforceable claim in that regard. It cannot be argued either, in our opinion, that the applicant, who had previously had a right to a disability pension because she fulfilled the eligibility requirements under the domestic law applicable at the relevant time, had a continuous legitimate expectation to receipt of that allowance or benefit for as long as one of those requirements continued to be met, regardless of how the relevant statutory requirements were amended or developed over time. In fact, the applicant had lost her proprietary interest, protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, through the decision of 1 February 2010 withdrawing her entitlement to a disability pension.

29. Following that withdrawal of her disability pension and the rejection of her appeals, the applicant first requested a new assessment of her disability. This resulted in a disability score of 50%, as determined on 13 December 2011 by the second-instance administrative authority. This, however, was insufficient, in the given circumstances, to allow the conclusion that the applicant fulfilled the conditions laid down by domestic law for entitlement to a disability allowance (see paragraph 17 of the judgment). Thus, nothing changed in respect of her situation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: she still had no “enforceable claim” to a disability pension. The fact that rehabilitation was envisaged, but regrettably not taken forward ( ibid. ), does not, in our opinion, alter this conclusion as regards the applicant’s legal situation.

30. On 1 January 2012 a new law on disability allowances (Act no. CXCI of 2011 on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity) entered into force. It changed the conditions of eligibility for disability benefits, now called disability allowances. In particular, a new contribution condition was introduced, which was stricter than the one applicable under the old law (see paragraph 18 of the judgment). According to the majority, this law was of a retroactive nature (see paragraph 104 of the judgment). We cannot agree with that characterisation. The new law produced its effects only for the future, thus being of immediate but not retroactive application.

31. We reiterate that according to the Court’s case-law the protection afforded by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not go so far as to prevent the competent authorities from amending the relevant rules and reforming the social-security system (see § 17 above). While the new law on disability allowances could constitute an interference in the “possessions” of those persons who received a disability pension at the moment when the law entered into force (see §§ 20-21 above), this was not the case in respect of the applicant, who at that moment was not entitled to such a pension under the old law (see § 22 above).

32. The question whether any proprietary interest, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, existed as from 1 January 2012 would thus have to be answered on the basis of the new law. The old law had been repealed, and could therefore no longer be the basis for any legitimate expectations to arise. In other words, although the applicant had fulfilled the contribution criterion as it applied in the past, this fact was no longer relevant once the new law entered into force, changing the relevant criteria. In order to answer the question whether, for the purposes of the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant’s claim had a sufficient basis in domestic law, it is the domestic law as it stood when the decisions were taken on her requests for a disability allowance, submitted on 20 February 2012 and 15 August 2012, that is relevant.

33. We would like to add that the fact that the applicant had made contributions under the old law does not change that finding. Indeed, as explained above, these contributions did not generate any claim to an identifiable share in a social-security fund, and therefore did not as such generate a proprietary interest protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see § 24 above).

34. Accordingly, the question is whether there was a sufficient basis in domestic law, as interpreted by the domestic courts, for the applicant’s claim to a disability allowance to qualify as an “asset” for the purposes of the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this respect, the decisive issue in our opinion is whether the applicant could be said to have satisfied the requirements for the disability allowance, as laid down in domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis , Koivusaari and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 20690/06, 23 February 2010).

35. The applicant brought two requests based on the law on disability allowances (Act no. CXCI of 2011). As indicated above, that law made the entitlement to a disability allowance dependent on two conditions: a health condition and a – now stricter – contribution condition (see § 30 above). The first request was rejected on 5 June 2012 on the ground that she did not fulfil the new contribution condition (see paragraph 19 of the judgment). The second request was also rejected, by a decision taken on 23 November 2012 and confirmed by an appellate body on 27 February 2013, and the applicant’s challenge to that decision was rejected by the Nyíregyháza Administrative and Labour Court on 20 June 2013, again on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the new contribution condition (see paragraphs 21-23 of the judgment). The applicant does not argue that the interpretation or the application of the new law by the domestic authorities was arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, and we see no reason to conclude that they were. As indicated above, the Court has consistently held that no legitimate expectation for the purpose of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and where, as here, the applicant’s submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see § 10 above). Thus, the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the applicant’s requests were rejected on the ground that she did not fulfil one of the conditions laid down by the applicable law on disability allowances is that her claims had no basis in the new law or, in other words, that she had no “enforceable claim” under that law.

36. The applicant argues, however, that she was entitled to a disability allowance on the basis of the former Hungarian Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, as well as on the basis of Article 12 § 2 of the European Social Charter, referring to ILO Convention No. 102, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

37. We are not convinced by the applicant’s argument that the provisions of the former Constitution had been interpreted by the Constitutional Court as obliging the State to provide for payment of a social allowance to the extent that is required for basic subsistence. In this regard, we would like to point to the reasoning in the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 40/2012 (XII.6.) AB (see paragraph 33 of the judgment), where it held that the Fundamental Law which replaced the former Constitution as of 1 January 2012 provides for general State objectives, rather than for rights conferred on individuals, as far as its Article XIX on social security is concerned. Moreover, the legislature was already expressly entitled to reduce, transform into a social allowance or terminate disability pensions under the former Constitution, as from 6 June 2011. The Constitutional Court also referred to its well-established case-law, which does not interpret the State’s obligation to guarantee basic subsistence as a source of specific, directly enforceable constitutional rights. We are therefore not persuaded that the constitutional principles relied on by the applicant created an enforceable right, to be implemented by the legislature.

38. Furthermore, we are unable to accept that the international-law norms referred to by the applicant constitute a basis for an enforceable right to the impugned Hungarian disability allowance. Hungary has not accepted to be bound by the parts of the European Social Charter or the Revised European Social Charter relied on (see paragraph 36 of the judgment). Neither has it ratified the European Code of Social Security or ILO Conventions Nos. 102 and 128 (see paragraphs 38, 40 and 41 of the judgment): it has thus not accepted the undertaking to secure at least a reduced invalidity benefit for those persons who have completed a period of five years of contribution prior to the contingency (see paragraph 42 of the judgment). In addition, the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (see paragraph 39 of the judgment), although ratified by Hungary, do not contain any specific obligation that would entitle the applicant to a disability benefit.

39. The conclusion we draw from the foregoing is that the applicant’s claim had no basis in domestic law as it stood on the dates when her requests for a disability allowance were rejected. There was thus no claim under domestic law that could be considered an asset protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In our opinion, therefore, the applicant did not have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the guarantees of that provision do not apply in the present case.

40. Accordingly, we would allow the Government’s objection based on the incompatibility ratione materiae of the complaint with the Convention and the Protocols thereto. Accordingly, there can be no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

B. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

41. In the event that the Court were to find Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inapplicable, the applicant, for the first time in her memorial of 30 September 2015 to the Grand Chamber, requested the Court to examine separately whether her right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention had been infringed on account of the loss of her only source of income, resulting from the amendment of the eligibility criteria for the disability pension.

42. Since we find that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is indeed inapplicable, we consider that we should give our views on the complaint based on Article 8 of the Convention.

43. According to the Court’s case-law, the “case” referred to the Grand Chamber, within the meaning of Article 43 of the Convention, is the application as it has been declared admissible (see, among many other authorities, K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 141, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016). In the present case, the question whether the impugned decision could be regarded as a failure to comply with the applicant’s right to respect for private life for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention is a matter that was not covered by the decision declaring the application admissible, and ought to be viewed as a separate complaint.

44. In our opinion, therefore, the Grand Chamber should have concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to examine the complaint under Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis , Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 39, 26 June 2012, and Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 81, ECHR 2015).

C. FINAL REMARK

45. We would like to end with a final remark. We are very well aware of the applicant’s difficult situation. She fell through the holes of the social-security net when it was reformed. But nevertheless we consider that hard cases do not make good law. Such cases cannot be a reason to change the Court’s long-standing and well-entrenched approach to the interpretation of “possessions” and “legitimate expectations” within the meaning of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention .

[1] . Paragraph (3) was enacted on 6 June 2011.

[2] . The Act’s provisions pertaining to the disability pension were repealed by Act no. CXCI of 2011 on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity as of 1 January 2012 (see paragraph 31 below).

[3] . See Act no. LXXXIV of 2007 quoted in paragraph 30 below.

[4] . Source: EUROSTAT – Social protection statistics – pension expenditure and pension beneficiaries, data from December 2014