CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt }   Communicated on 16 December 2014     SECOND SECTION Application no. 966/14 PARTNERS 2000 KFT and Others against Hungary lodged on 19 December 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant, Partners 2000 Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company with its seat in Nyárliget. The second applicant, Mr I. Györkös, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Sopron. The third applicant, Mrs I. Györkös, is the second applicant’s wife, who was born in   1973 and lives in Sopron. The fourth applicant is Mr and Mrs Györkös’ minor child, born in 2000. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Partners 2000 Kft, holder of a relevant excise licence, was active in tobacco retail for 13 years. In 2012 its turnover of tobacco products was 526,141,000 Hungarian forints. It was managed by Mr Györkös, and Mrs   Györkös also participated personally in the business. On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012. According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt ), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013. Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender. Legal persons were not entitled to apply. The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013, with entry into force on 1 July 2013. Government Decree no.   181/2013. (VI.7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published on 8   June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process, the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013. The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself. Since his company was not entitled to apply for a concession, Mr   Györkös applied personally in every successive round of the tender. However, ND Zrt turned down his applications, informing him that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decisions said that his applications did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings. No compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood. The refusals, such as those of Mr Györkös, were not subject to any legal remedy. The applicants further submit that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been doing tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that the effective removal of their tobacco retail licence, that is, the legislative exclusion of Partner 2000 from tobacco retail and the refusals concerning Mr Györkös, amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions. They rely on Articles 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been an interference with the first and second applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR   1999-V)?