CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2018

.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 4 January 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 11100/15 SZAJKI MEZŐGAZDASÁGI ZRT against Hungary lodged on 27 February 2015 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, as well as the termination, as of 1   September 2014, of leases concluded between a usufructuary and a third person on the lands at issue. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, did that interference comply with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, has the applicant company been deprived of its possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of the Convention? Did such interference serve a legitimate public interest? Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)?