CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 janvier 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 230 June 2019 Albert and Others v. Hungary (referral) - 5294/14 Judgment 29.1.2019 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Impact on shareholders of legislation putting banks under central supervising authorities: case referred to the Grand Chamber Article 34 Victim Impact on shareholders of legislation putting banks under central supervising authorities: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicants, shareholders in two savings banks, alleged that the restriction of their rights to influence the operation of the banks in which they held shares, stemming from the Integration Act of 2013, had violated their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. In particular, in their view, the legislation interfered excessively with their rights to establish and amend a memorandum of association, adopt annual reports, appoint board members and determine share capital or payment of dividends. Under the new legislation those issues had become subject to the approval of two central bodies which had initially been controlled by the State. In a judgment of 29 January 2019, a Chamber of the Court held, by six votes to one, that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation and that there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Due to the applicants not having pointed to any circumstances justifying the lifting of the corporate veil, the Chamber found that they could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation stemming from the legislative provisions that had been aimed at regulating the operation of the cooperative credit institutions and allowed for measures to be taken against the banks. Such measures could possibly amount to interference with the rights of those banks, but not the applicants. The Court found that the impugned legislation had not interfered with the applicants’ rights in view of the scope of their complaints and that they therefore could not claim to be victims of the alleged violations within the meaning of Article   34. On 24 June 2019 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes