CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCA3E75FF { width:121.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8D7350E7 { width:7.34%; 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 } .sA69D0956 { width:43.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBAAEE09F { width:23.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD894FC81 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9DD2EBBA { width:7.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA2BFA12 { width:43.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6543FB4 { width:23.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s44D52388 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 5 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39991/23 ALCU TEAM 2000 Kft. and Others against Hungary lodged on 27 October 2023 communicated on 17 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the enactment of new legislation concerning waste management and an alleged violation of the applicants’ property and fair trial rights in that context. The applicants are companies which had licences to carry out waste management activities for a number of years. On 22 February 2021 new legislation was adopted modifying Act   No.   CLXXXV of 2012 on waste management, which introduced a new integrated (concession-based) model of waste management. Consequently, on 1 July 2023 the State granted a concession to a single concessionaire for 35 years. The applicants submit that they could not apply for such a concession because apparently they did not fulfil the statutory requirements set out in the new legislation. Some of the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 21 June 2023 (decision served on the applicants on 27 June 2023), largely on the basis of an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, which was allegedly never forwarded to the applicants. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that they lost their licences for waste management activities and could not apply for a new concession, making it impossible for them to carry on their business, and this without adequate compensation. They also complain that, as of 1 July 2023, they had to transfer their existing waste stocks to the new concessionaire, that they lost their clientele and that the sale of their equipment and facilities was conditioned on the competent Minister’s prior authorisation against which there was no possibility of judicial review. The applicants further complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the failure to forward to them the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology violated the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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: (a) Was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? (b) Was an excessive individual burden imposed on the applicants (compare Pannon Plakát Kft. and Others v. Hungary , no. 39859/14, §§   50 ‑ 59, 6 December 2022; Könyv-Tár Kft. and Others v. Hungary , no.   21623/13, §§   48-59, 16 October 2018   ; Vékony v. Hungary , no. 65681/13, §§ 32-37, 13   January 2015)? (c) Was there an adequate compensatory scheme available to the applicants (see Könyv-Tár Kft. and Others v. Hungary, no. 21623/13, §§   56 ‑ 57, 16 October 2018   )? 2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see Janáček v.   the   Czech   Republic , no. 9634/17, §§ 46-56, 2 February 2023)?       APPENDIX Application no. 39991/23   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Place of residence 1. ALCU TEAM 2000 KFT. 2000 Gödöllő 2. BÉKE-METÁL KFT. 2008 Szolnok 3. DOBRAI KFT. 2000 Budapest 4. ECOMETALEX RECYCLING KFT. 2002 Csömör 5. EGRI FÉM KFT. 2005 Miskolc 6. Judit HÖRCSÖGNÉ KOVÁCS 1967 Izsák 7. HWD RECYCLING KFT. 2007 Seregélyes 8. INTER-METAL RECYCLING KFT. 1997 Budapest 9. JÁSZMETÁLL KFT. 2013 Jászapáti 10. KAPOCS-FÉM KFT. 2011 Hort 11. KOLLER METÁL KFT. 2010 Baja 12. KÖRNYEZET-2001 KFT. 2001 Szolnok 13. M. KONTÉNER KFT. 2006 Budapest 14. MAPE-KER KFT. 2004 Budapest 15. METÁLKER HUNGÁRIA KFT. 1997 Csömör 16. M-FERRO KFT. 2005 Budapest 17. MI-FÉM 2005 KFT. 2005 Szirmabesenyő 18. MIKLÓS FÉM KFT. 2011 Törökszentmiklós 19. MIXTRADE TRANS KFT. 2013 Alsózsolca 20. NATUR ASSET KFT. 2010 Budapest 21. POVAS KFT. 2005 Miskolc 22. TISZA-BÉRC KFT. 2008 Miskolc 23. TÖRÖK METALS KFT. 2010 Algyő 24. VAFIPKER KFT. 1989 Tiszakécske 25. VERES-METAL KFT. 2010 Veresegyház 26. V-INDUSTRIA METAL KFT. 2007 Kisbér 27. VITA GLASS KFT. 2010 Miskolc 28. ZSOLBERT KFT. 2001 Törökbálint