CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 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 7 February 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 20797/14 Iván GARA against Hungary lodged on 7 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-disbursement of a certain part of the applicant’s pension in the absence of underlying legislation. The applicant had become member of a private pension fund. His savings held by the private fund amount to 5,339,874 Hungarian forints (approximately 17,800   euros). The applicant reached the retirement age on 8 September 2013, when the State established his monthly pension. However, since then he has been receiving only 76.75% of the relevant monthly amount from the State pension fund. The disbursement of the remaining 23.25%, that is the portion to be paid by the private pension fund, cannot be obtained because the relevant legislation, under which the private pension fund would be able to make the payments, has not been enacted to date. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the non-disbursement of part of the applicant’s pension amount to an interference with the applicant’s right for respect for his possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was this interference lawful? In the affirmative, did that interference at issue impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   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?