CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3635F015 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s165D87C7 { width:21.45pt; display:inline-block } .sCC12FB50 { width:141.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 606/14 Ildikó KATONA against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12   November 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović, President,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 December 2013, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Ildikó Katona, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Sződliget. 2.     The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, Ministry of Justice. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant was employed at a State-owned company. Her employment was terminated in 2012. 5.     Upon termination of her employment, in 2013 a certain part of her revenue due on dismissal was taxed at a 98% rate, in the amount of 6,375,933   Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 21,800 euros (EUR)). 6.     This amount of special tax was levied at the source by the employer. 7.     Subsequently, the applicant submitted an application in order to have the special tax obligation erased. 8 .     The tax authority ordered the deletion of the amount of the special tax and, in its stead, levied a 25% flat-rate public charge in the amount of HUF   1,626,514 (approximately EUR 5,500). It reimbursed the remaining special tax to the applicant. COMPLAINT 9.     The applicant complained that the imposition of a 98% tax on part of her remuneration due on termination of her employment had amounted to a deprivation of property in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW 10.     The applicant complained that the application of the 98% special tax regime breached her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 11.     The Government disagreed. 12.     The Court observes that similar complaints gave rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§   54-62, 2 July 2013) and several other applications. 13.     However, in the present case, the applicant’s tax obligation under the 98% special tax regime was ultimately replaced by a flat-rate public charge of 25%; and she was reimbursed accordingly by the authorities (see paragraph 8 above). 14.     It follows that she can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the special tax regime. Moreover, the residual tax burden of 25% does not indicate any appearance of a violation of her rights under that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , M.A. v. Hungary (dec.), no. 36642/14, 28 November 2017). 15.     Consequently, the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 December 2019.   Andrea Tamietti   Faris Vehabović   Deputy Registrar   President