CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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. 11333/14 F.G. against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   December 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 28 January 2014, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr F.G., is a Hungarian national, who was born in   1970 and lives in Budapest. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). He was represented before the Court by Mr D.A. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 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. His employment was terminated in 2013. His taxable income in 2013 was altogether 14,686,840 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 49,000   euros (EUR)). 5.     Upon termination of employment, a certain part of the sum due on dismissal was taxed at a 98% rate, in the amount of HUF   4,463,377 (approximately EUR 15,000). 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 under an intervening amendment of the law. 8 .     The tax authority ordered the deletion of the amount of the special tax and, in its stead, levied a so-called higher flat-rate public charge (75%) in the amount of HUF   3,415,850 (approximately EUR 11,500). It reimbursed the remaining special tax to the applicant. COMPLAINT 9.     The applicant complained that the imposition of a 98% tax on part of his remuneration due on termination of 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 his 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 so-called higher flat ‑ rate public charge of 75%; and he was reimbursed accordingly by the authorities (see paragraph 8 above). The residual tax burden of 75% (EUR   11,500) on the severance payment alone represents approximately 23.5% tax pressure on his total taxable income in 2013 (EUR 49,000 – see paragraph 4 above) which does not indicate any appearance of a violation of his rights under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , M.A. v.   Hungary (dec.), no.   36642/14, §§ 21-35, 28 November 2017). 14.     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 16 January 2020.   Andrea Tamietti   Faris Vehabović   Deputy Registrar   President