CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s75397A2C { font-family:Arial; color:#202122 } .sC7A28C1F { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.15pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sB0475E9F { width:96.4%; margin-left:13.95pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s2E1B1DF4 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s9E6CB497 { width:22.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE71BB9AE { width:28.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sECD893F3 { width:38.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC4BD41D7 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA66A39 { width:22.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBF9935D8 { width:28.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCFA456C { width:38.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 19 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35610/22 BK1 and Others against Hungary lodged on 13 July 2022 communicated on 1 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are legal entities and private entrepreneurs engaged in the retail sale of automotive fuel. The details of the individual applicants are set out in Appendix. On 15 November 2021 Government Decree no. 624/2021 on the application of Act no. LXXXVII of 1990 on Price setting during emergency entered into force. The government decree set a cap on the retail price of petrol and diesel oil at 480 Hungarian forints per litre, initially for three months. Government Decree no. 626/2021 on the detailed rules of implementation entered into force on the same day. The measure was subsequently enacted by Act no. CXXX of 2021, which entered into force on 1   January 2022. The price cap was successively prolonged until 31 December 2022. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint on 13 July 2022 challenging the constitutionality of the government decrees and of Act   no.   CXXX of 2021. On 6 December 2022 Government Decree no. 494/2022 was published in the Official Gazette and entered into force on the same day, terminating the application of the regulated price scheme. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court were discontinued on 31   January 2023 on the grounds that the impugned provisions were not in force anymore, no measures were taken, and no proceedings were initiated against any of the petitioners in application of those provisions. The applicants complain that their rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 have been violated as a result of the implementation of the regulated price scheme in respect of automotive fuel, without the possibility to obtain compensation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the regulated fuel price scheme? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?       APPENDIX (anonymity has been granted) Application no. 35610/22 No. Applicant’s Name Year of registration Place of registration 1. BK1 1998 Besenyőtelek 2. BK2 1990 Soltvadkert 3. BK3 1995 Nyírbátor 4. BK4 2003 Gyöngyös 5. BK5 1991 Budapest 6. BK6 2007 Berettyóújfalu 7. BK7 1993 Gyöngyös 8. BK8 2020 Tiszavasvári 9. BK9 2011 Szombathely 10. BK10 1995 Pápa 11. BK11 1992 Nyíregyháza 12. BK12 2017 Budapest 13. BK13 2011 Budapest 14. BK14 2011 Nagykőrös 15. BK15 1997 Füzesabony 16. BK16 2005 Budapest 17. BK17 2018 Szigetszentmárton 18. BK18 2000 Erdőtelek 19. BK19 2014 Budapest 20. BK20 2012 Csákberény 21. BK21 1993 Szolnok 22. BK22 2011 Jászalsószentgyörgy 23. BK23 2009 Solt 24. BK24 1999 Inárcs 25. BK25 1990 Dunaszentgyörgy 26. BK26 2010 Kiskunhalas 27. BK27 1996 Baja 28. BK28 2012 Mélykút 29. BK29 1999 Táp 30. BK30 2009 Budapest 31. BK31 2010 Nyíregyháza 32. BK32 2010 Budapest 33. BK33 2012 Székesfehérvár 34. BK34 1992 Bakonycsernye 35. BK35 1988 Bonyhád 36. BK36 2014 Budapest 37. BK37 1996 Nyíregyháza-Sóstófürdő 38. BK38 2010 Budapest 39. BK39 1993 Kisapostag 40. BK40 1995 Tarcal 41. BK41 1998 Vaja 42. BK42 1998 Budapest 43. BK43 2005 Baja 44. BK44 1991 Bekecs 45. BK45 2019 Kecskemét 46. BK46 2008 Budapest 47. BK47 2011 Budapest 48. BK48 1999 Gödöllő 49. BK49 1997 Budapest