CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 27 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40598/22 Katalin NAGY-SALLAI against Hungary and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal to make a severance payment to the applicants, who were working at different health care providers and who, following their refusal to take the coronavirus vaccine, were dismissed by their employers on the basis of a COVID-19-related legislation. Government Decree no. 449/2021 (VII. 29.) on the mandatory vaccination against coronavirus (hereinafter “Vaccine Decree”) concerning healthcare employees entered into force on 1 August 2021. In October 2021 the applicants were dismissed with immediate effect by their employers as they had refused to get vaccinated as prescribed by the Vaccine Decree. In line with the new legislation the applicants were not entitled to any severance pay – which in the applicants’ case otherwise would have been a significant amount of money, corresponding to 18, 7 and 24 years of employment, respectively. The first and second applicants challenged the Vaccine Decree before the Constitutional Court but to no avail. On 5 April 2022 the Constitutional Court, in its decision no. 3192/2022. (IV. 29.), dismissed their complaints by essentially finding that the right to protection of property as enshrined in the Fundamental Law did not apply to severance pay in the applicants’ case. The decision was served on the first and second applicants on 20 April 2022 and 26 April 2022, respectively. The third applicant instituted a labour lawsuit against his employer claiming the severance pay on 11 April 2022. The applicant’s action was dismissed at both first and second instances and his subsequent petition for judicial review was dismissed by the Kúria on 24 May 2023. The Kúria essentially held that the Vaccine Decree introduced a sui generis termination modus of employment, based on which the third applicant was not eligible for severance pay and therefore, he could not have any related legitimate expectation. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 June 2023. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that by virtue of the Vaccine Decree they were deprived of their legitimate expectation of severance pay. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicants claim to have had a legitimate expectation, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, to receive severance pay prior to the entry into force of the Vaccine Decree (see N.K.M.   v. Hungary , no. 66529/11, §§ 32-41, 14 May 2013, and Stretch v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 44277/98, §§ 32-41, 24 June 2003)?   2.     In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, by the refusal to grant them severance pay on the basis of the Vaccine Decree?   If so, was the measure provided for by law, did it pursue a general interest and did it strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicants’ fundamental rights?   In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 40598/22 Nagy-Sallai v. Hungary 12/08/2022 Katalin NAGY-SALLAI 1981 Hajdúszoboszló Hungarian György NÁDAS 2. 42103/22 Nagy v. Hungary 25/08/2022 Gergő Tibor NAGY 1990 Pilismarót Hungarian Gergely GÖNCZI 3. 38869/23 Mazán v. Hungary 16/10/2023 Zsolt MAZÁN 1967 Békéscsaba Hungarian Levente BALTAY