CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 May 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 53996/12 POLITIKATÖRTÉNETI INTÉZET KFT and MSZOSZ against Hungary lodged on 14 August 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE   The applicants are a foundation and a trade union. The Foundation, currently operating as private archives, was once an institute of the Communist party, whereas the Trade Union was an important protagonist of political life under the Communist regime. The Foundation was, under a 1991 statute, the keeper of large archival material concerning the former Communist movement, party and organisations and, moreover, the depositary of the archives of the Trade Union, as per contract. Under the 2012 Fundamental Law and a 2012 statute, both archives were declared State property to be transferred to the National Archives. The rationale behind was apparently that the organisations whose documents are concerned were public bodies during Communist times and therefore their archives must enjoy enhanced protection afforded only by the National Archives. The applicants challenged these provisions in the Constitutional Court but in vain. The Foundation’s action in justice was also unsuccessful. The Supreme Court held in essence that the Foundation was actually not the owner of either archives, since they had constituted State property already under the earlier rules. The applicants complain about uncompensated and discriminatory expropriation, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the materials allegedly nationalised constitute “possessions” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     In the affirmative, were the applicants deprived of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     If so, was that deprivation justified for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V) given the apparent absence of compensation for the nationalised assets?