CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 19 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 6215/18 Mihály NAGY against Hungary lodged on 23 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the attachment of two motorbikes which the applicant bought from a company. He submits that the attachment was unjustified since it ensued from the tax debts of the previous owner and was already statute-barred. Moreover, the claim in question was a minor sum and did not justify the attachment of two valuable motorbikes worth several thousand euros. As a result, he could not exercise his owner’s rights from April 2014 to July 2017. QUESTION 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? If so, was it justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Hábenczius v. Hungary , no. 44473/06, 21   October 2014)?