CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2017

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 7 February 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47872/15 MHZ KFT against Hungary and 10 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the creation of a new register of liquidators, which, unlike the previous one, limits the number of companies potentially enrolled. As a result, several liquidators who had been pursuing that activity for a long time, but whose application for the new list was rejected, lost their licences. They challenged in court both the result of the new tender and their deletions from the list. They successfully obtained stays of execution of their deletions. However, the interim measures adopted by the domestic courts, although they were confirmed on appeal and thus became final and executory, remained ineffective. The applicants complain that the authorities’ failure to comply with the stays of execution amounted to a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities comply with the requirement according to which final, binding judicial decisions cannot remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see, among other authorities, Hornsby v. Greece , 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II, and Pini and Others v. Romania , nos. 78028/01 and   78030/01, § 176, ECHR 2004 ‑ V (extracts))? 3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with the stays of execution and on account of the fact that the applicants are unable to pursue their previous activity notwithstanding the final interim measures? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , AGOSI v. the United Kingdom , 24   October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108; Denisova and   Moiseyeva v. Russia , no. 16903/03, § 59, 1   April   2010; and B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v.   Slovenia , no.   42079/12, §§   43 ‑ 44, 17 January 2017)?     Appendix   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   47872/15 17/09/2015 MHZ KFT MHZ KFT Szolnok   András FODOR   49750/15 29/09/2015 CITY INVEST KFT CITY INVEST KFT Győr   Péter KÁRPÁTI   52387/15 29/09/2015 CONCUR BEFEKTETÉSI KFT CONCUR BEFEKTETÉSI KFT Budapest   Péter KÁRPÁTI   52428/15 16/10/2015 198. SZ. JURIS-INVEST KFT 198. SZ. JURIS-INVEST KFT Berettyóújfalu   Antal KÖKÉNYESI   55024/15 28/10/2015 HUNYADI VÁLSÁGMENEDZSER ÉS FELSZÁMOLÓ ZRT HUNYADI VÁLSÁGMENEDZSER ÉS FELSZÁMOLÓ ZRT Budapest   Ágnes HAJDÚ   55189/15 30/10/2015 PRO-CREDITOR KFT PRO-CREDITOR KFT Budapest   László FARKAS   55199/15 27/10/2015 CSABAHOLDING SZOLGÁLTATÓ KFT CSABAHOLDING SZOLGÁLTATÓ KFT Budapest   László FARKAS   61673/15 08/12/2015 FACTOR KFT FACTOR KFT Budapest   Artúr TAMÁSI   2262/16 23/12/2015 HUBERTUS PÉNZÜGYI GAZDASÁGI TANÁCSADÓ KFT HUBERTUS PÉNZÜGYI GAZDASÁGI TANÁCSADÓ KFT Pécs   Artúr TAMÁSI             3948/16 23/12/2015 PÁTRIA CONSULT ZMRT PÁTRIA CONSULT ZMRT Budapest   Artúr TAMÁSI             18396/16 25/03/2016 DELTA NOVA FELSZÁMOLÓ ÉS TANÁCSADÓ KFT DELTA NOVA FELSZÁMOLÓ ÉS TANÁCSADÓ KFT Tata   Artúr TAMÁSI