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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 January 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42034/15 Gábor PÓCZA against Hungary lodged on 20 August 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. The Land Registry’s decision deleting the applicant’s usufruct was adopted on 30   July 2015. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 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, did that interference comply with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, has the applicant been deprived of his 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 (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)?