CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s5A507FBE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4C4AC2C1 { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.5pt } .s86A03557 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s2F74E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.5pt } .s78A3D8FC { margin:0pt 50.4pt 0pt 187.2pt; text-indent:-140.4pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s18F77C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.75pt } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCCE09D73 { letter-spacing:-0.5pt } .sA2E917F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:3.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCD019D73 { letter-spacing:-0.4pt } .s76647CE2 { letter-spacing:-0.35pt } .s76AA7CE2 { letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s770B7CE2 { letter-spacing:-0.45pt } .s9A2076DE { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:190.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s1F7EE34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.7pt } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sCC9E9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.7pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sD7CE228C { width:27.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sDC947C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.45pt } .sA3C735C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:50.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCCBF9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.6pt } .sAB40CF1B { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)90 [1]   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Lánchíd Hítel és Faktor Zrt. contre Hongrie   (Requête n o 40381/05, arrêt du 2 novembre 2010, définitif le 2 février 2011)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »)),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)371E ) [2] ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in intergrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnés   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)371E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.       Action Report of 2 August 2011 Appl. No. 40381/05 Lánchíd Hitel és Faktor Zrt., judgment of 02/11/2010, final 02/02/2011 (Revised)   Introductory case summary   The applicant, Lánchíd Hitel és Faktor Zrt., is a Hungarian private limited company based in Budapest. It complained that certain debts – in particular social security contributions – which had been assigned by the tax authorities in 2001 and 2002 were declared non- enforceable by the Hungarian courts. It relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The Court concluded that no “fair balance” has been struck between the demands of the general interests of the community – namely, the integrity of the treasury – and the requirements of the individual’s fundamental rights.   There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures     Details of just satisfaction   Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicant was paid on 29 April 2011 (pecuniary damage 310.000 €, costs and expenses 40.000 €). Therefore, considering the nature of the violations found in this case, and relevant facts of the case, no special individual measures are necessary in the execution process.   II.   General measures     a)   Legislation   Section 3(3) c) of the (Old) Taxation Order Act 1990 (no. XCI of 1990) (as in force at the material time) provided that the Act was to be applied to the payment of social security contributions. Section 25(2) f) provided that, if a taxpayer failed to pay the tax and it could not be recovered from that taxpayer, the Tax Authority was entitled to the adoption of a decision establishing vicarious liability to cover the outstanding debt. Sections 6(1) and 6(2), 35(2)f) and 120(1)a) of the (New) Taxation Order Act 2003 (no. XCII of 2003) contained identical rules.   The interpretation that assignees could not claim in civil courts outstanding taxes from those with vicarious liability was established by the Supreme Court in Uniformity Decision no. 2/2004.PJE. The legislation was subsequently repealed by Act no. LVI of 2005. According to the reasoning of the bill, the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Uniformity Decision no. 2/2004.PJE – an economically unjustified misconception of the law running counter to the intentions of the lawmaker – rendered unenforceable and thus worthless those tax debts which could not be recovered in the liquidation of the original debtors. Therefore the legal avenue of a civil action was to be opened for the assignees of such claims vis-à-vis those with vicarious liability, so as to restore constitutionality in terms of the right to access to a court in this context.     b)   Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published on the website of the Government ( www.kormany.hu ).   III.   Con clusions of the respondent state   The Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.   Budapest, 20 March 2012 Zoltân Tallódi Co-Agent of the Government of the Republic of Hungary [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2012 lors de la 1144e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] document en anglais uniquement