CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 9 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10490/16 László HORVÁTH against Hungary lodged on 27 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suspension of payment of the ‘service allowance’ (previously, service pension) of the applicant, a retired police officer (which was based on 26 years of service), because his annual income from post-retirement private (secondary) employment reached a certain statutory threshold in the years 2012 to 2016. His legal recourses to the ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court were to no avail. He complains that this amounts to an unjustified interference with his property rights, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Moreover, relying of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he also argues that the impugned measure is discriminatory in that it: (a)     is applied only if the secondary activity was performed in Hungary, rather than abroad; (b)     is applied only to persons in receipt of service allowance who were younger than 57 years of age on 1 January 2012; and (c)     offers an exemption to persons who signed a voluntary contract of reservist with the armed forces.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?