CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 avril 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 18 April 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 52969/14 Péter LEGEZA against Hungary lodged on 16 July 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In application of Act nos. XC of 2010, CXXIV of 2010 and CCL of 2013, the upper bracket of the severance payment due to the applicant – a former employee of GIRO Zrt, a State-owned company – was taxed at the special rate of 75%. The amount concerned was 26,346,437 Hungarian forints. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 about the measure which in his view was nothing else but disguised and unjustified deprivation of possession. He also argues that Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated because only those dismissed from the public sector are subjected to the tax. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, R.Sz. v. Hungary , no. 41838/11, §§ 31 to   34 and §§ 54 to 62, 2 July 2013)?