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 }   Communicated on 7 February 2017     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54683/16 Edit JUHÁSZ against Hungary lodged on 12 September 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 legislature’s failure to comply with its obligation, flowing from decision no. 25/2015. (VII. 21.) AB of the Constitutional Court, to create compensatory rules until 1   December 2015 at the latest, amounted to a “continuing situation” (see, mutatis mutandis , Sabin Popescu v. Romania , no. 48102/99, § 51, 2 March 2004, and Iordache v. Romania , no.   6817/02, § 63, 14 October 2008)?   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)?