CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 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 }   Communicated on 17 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29258/16 Géza KOTHENCZ against Hungary lodged on 5 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the termination, by the force of law and without compensation, of long-term usufruct contracts on arable lands. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the application been introduced in compliance with Article 35   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant complied with the six ‑ month time-limit, given that the remedy against the administrative decisions deleting his rights from the land register appears to have been ineffective (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 157, ECHR 2009)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, has the applicant been deprived of its possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did such deprivation or other interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)?