CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .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 20 September 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27606/17 Gábor János SCHMIED against Hungary lodged on 5 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings conducted against the applicant, a disabled person. The applicant has Little’s disease. He possesses a special permit to use parking spots for disabled persons. However, on 14 April 2015 the Budapest VIII District Police Department fined him HUF 20,000 (approximately EUR 65) because of unlawful parking on a parking spot for disabled persons, the unlawfulness consisting in the fact that his permit to use parking spots for the disabled had not been displayed in his car. The authority relied on sections 11 and 224 of Act no. II of 2012 on Misdemeanours. Although during the proceedings the applicant submitted to the authorities his special permit, on 13 May 2015 the decision was upheld by the Pest Central District Court. He requested the commutation of the fine to custody, as in general is permitted by section 12 of the Act. On 18 October 2016 the court rejected his request stating that according to point a) of section 10 of the same act, if the person concerned is disabled as defined in Act no. XXVI of 1998 on the Rights and Equal Opportunities of Disabled Persons, such commutation was not possible. No appeal lay against this decision. The applicant submits that the domestic proceedings were unfair and that he has been discriminated against, since as a disabled person living from disability pension, he was not allowed to have the fine commutated to custody as it would have been possible in case of a person not having a disability. He relied on Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the complaint, consisting in the loss of a legal choice available to others, fall within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Glor v. Switzerland , no. 13444/04, § 54, ECHR 2009)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his disability, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment as regards possible legal consequences of a misdemeanour? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   3. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings complained of? If so, did the applicant benefit from a fair hearing of his case?