CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 8 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 73303/14 Béla Miklós NÉMETH against Hungary lodged on 14 November 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a public auction at which the applicant acquired ownership of a property on 18 March 2014. However, due to an intervening amendment of the law on 15 May 2014, the bailiff subsequently did not proceed to evict the inhabitants of the property, a measure that would have been necessary to allow the applicant to enter into possession. According to the amendment, if the auction took place because the debtor (the original owner) had had a mortgage in foreign currency which he could not honour, then such eviction could not take place in favour of an individual, such as the applicant. The same did not apply if the acquirer was the local municipality or an economic entity owned by the municipality. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his property rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention?