CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 14 March 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4588/16 Gábor HERMAN against Hungary lodged on 18 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and under Article 13 about legislation introduced by the Government in 2013 on prohibition of “double allowance” according to which pensioners still actively employed in the public sector lost their pension rights for the duration of their on-going post-retirement employment. The same is not true for those pensioners who keep working in the private sector. The applicant, already in receipt of an old-age pension, took up employment with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as a civil servant, as of 2 August 2012. In application of the new rule, on 1   July   2013 the disbursement of the applicant’s pension was suspended until 1 July 2015 when he terminated his employment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his re-employment in the public sphere, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1   of Protocol No. 1 (cf. Fábián v. Hungary , no. 78117/13, 15   December 2015)?