CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s19D1D574 { width:36.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDC1C35B1 { width:23.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s290B0717 { width:32.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s448D3EE0 { width:36.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE0E4D903 { width:23.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB5F0F5F2 { width:32.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 15 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20135/24 Ferenc HAJZÓK and Others against Hungary lodged on 9 July 2024 communicated on 29 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lack of supported housing services ( támogatott lakhatás ) provided to the first, third and fifth applicants, who have severe and multiple disabilities. The second, fourth and sixth applicants are their mothers who are also their carers at home. The first, third and fifth applicants require 24-hour care. In 2015 they applied for supported housing with the Directorate of Social Affairs and Child Protection ( Szociális és Gyermekvédelmi Főigazgatóság ). In reply, the Directorate informed them that they had to indicate the institution where they wished to be accommodated. As no such institution existed in Budapest, the first, third and fifth applicants could not file a request for supported housing. Subsequently, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Human Resources and the Directorate of Social Affairs and Child Protection for infringing their right to dignity, right to respect for their private and family life, as well as their right to equal treatment. The first and second instance courts found for all applicants. They ordered the authorities to provide the first, third and fifth applicants with supported housing in Budapest, as well as to pay damages to each of the applicants in the amount of HUF 500,000 (approximately EUR   13,500). The respondents lodged a petition for judicial review with the Kúria . On 5   April   2023 the Kúria quashed the second instance judgment and reversed the first instance judgment, dismissing the applicants’ action. It found that even though the applicants were entitled to supported housing as a form of social service provided under domestic law, their claim could not be enforced via civil proceedings because of the lack of a civil law relationship between them and the respondent authorities which could serve as a basis for their personality rights claims. On 26 March 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint. The applicants complain under Article 8 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that the State did not meet its positive obligation to care for people with disabilities and to ensure their right to supported housing under domestic law. Neither supported housing, nor any other housing option that would consider the support needs of the first, third and fifth applicants was made available to them in Budapest or its vicinity, resulting in their neglect and the social isolation of both the applicants with disabilities and their mothers who had been caring for them for decades. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants further argue that they had no effective remedy at their disposal with respect to the alleged violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, did the respondent State violate its positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention by failing to take measures to provide the applicants with supported housing or any other social services that would ensure the effective protection of their right to respect for their private and family life, thus failing to strike a fair balance between the interest of the individual and of the community as a whole as required by Article 8 of the Convention (see Jivan v.   Romania , no. 62250/19, §§ 40-42, 8 February 2022)?   2.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of disability, in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention ( see for the relevant principles V.I. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 38963/18, §§   168-70, 26   March 2024)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention ( see for the general principles Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI)?     APPENDIX Application no. 20135/24   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Place of residence 1. Ferenc HAJZÓK 1983 Budapest 2. Magdolna SCHILLING 1960 Budapest 3. Zsófia VÁGFALVI 1992 Budapest 4. Zsoltné VÁGFALVI 1969 Budapest 5. Veronika BENKE 1979 Budapest 6. Józsefné BENKE 1948 Budapest