CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 February 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31185/14 AGRO-PACHT KFT against Hungary lodged on 23 April 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the termination, by the force of law and without compensation, of long-term usufruct contracts on arable lands. The applicant company is owned by two Austrian nationals. They argue that although the legislation on the termination of usufruct contracts is apparently neutral, non-Hungarian nationals, who are banned from acquiring land in Hungary and can only obtain title to a land in the form of usufruct, are much more affected by it. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, has the applicant been deprived of its possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did such deprivation or other interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)? 2.   Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights on the ground of the nationality of its owners, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Guberina v. Croatia , no.   23682/13, § 78, ECHR 2016)?