CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28323/18 LAURUS INVEST HUNGARY KFT and   CONTINENTAL   HOLDINGCORPORATION against Hungary lodged on 13 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the removal of licences from companies involved in developing and operating entertainment arcades and other gaming arcades in Hungary following legislative changes. A first application from the applicant companies was rejected as inadmissible on 8   September 2015 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Laurus Invest Hungary Kft and Others v. Hungary (dec.), nos.   23265/13, 23853/13, 24262/13, 25087/13, 25095/13 and 25102/13, 8   September 2015). Subsequently, the applicant companies brought an action in damages against the respondent State, to no avail. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the impugned measure in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the licences in question constitute possessions (see Vékony v.   Hungary , no. 65681/13, § 29, 13 January 2015; Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd v. Poland , no. 51728/99, 28 July 2005; and Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden , 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159)? Can the measures be justified under the “general interest” clause of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Were the requirements of lawfulness met (see, mutatis mutandis , Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005‑XII (extracts))? Were there any circumstances under which the lack of compensation for the revocation of licences could be justified under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their property rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that casinos were not subjected to the impugned measure?