CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 novembre 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 }   Communicated on 13 November 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22172/14 György KARSAI against Hungary lodged on 13 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a lecturer at Pécs University since 1995. Under a 2011 law, lecturers had to declare their affiliation to a particular university for the purposes of assessing the operational requirements of higher education institutions. One lecturer could declare one exclusive affiliation only. On 23 September 2013 the applicant withdrew his declaration made in respect of Pécs University and made another one, in relation to another institution of higher education. This state of affairs allowed Pécs University to dismiss him, which it did, on 18 November 2013. Under the relevant rules, in such a situation the employer was exempted from providing a severance payment to the dismissed lecturer – which in the applicant’s case otherwise would have been a significant amount of money corresponding to 18.5 years of service with Pécs University. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention about the loss of the legitimate expectation of severance payment and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the measure justified for the purposes of that provision?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?