[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KATAI v. HUNGARY - 939/12 - HECOM [2012] ECHR 1740 (24 September 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1740.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 1740

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

SECOND SECTION

Application no.939/12
JózsefKÁTAI
against Hungary
lodged on 29 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

The applicant, Mr JózsefKátai, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Komló.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 31 May 2007 the Pécs District Court established, in a final and binding judgment, the applicant’s disability as one of Grade III, that is, 67%. It was laid down that his condition was final and not susceptible to any further review. The judgment entitled the applicant to a disability pension, the amount of which appears to have been 37.5% of his average monthly salary.

In 2011, Act no. CXCI was enacted, effective as of 1 January 2012, which introduced a new system of disability allowances. Beneficiaries were sent a letter and invited to apply, by 31 March 2012, for a reassessment of their condition by expert committees. Once applying for this within the deadline, they remained entitled to their old allowances (of unchanged amount) until the reassessment took place.

In the reassessment procedure, there can be granted – depending on the person’s real and actual condition – a disability allowance (whose amount is 40% of the person’s average monthly salary) or a rehabilitation allowance (amounting to 35% of the average monthly salary and disbursable for three years). If the person concerned no longer qualifies, the entitlement may be removed. The applicant submits that in either case, he will also lose other (such as transport, cultural and medical) benefits.

In reply to the applicant’s complaint letter to the Ministry of Human Resources, it was explained that the measure in question was warranted by the disproportionately high proportion in Hungary of those on disability pension (in Hungary, over 12% within the employable population, whereas the OECD average is 5.8%); that disability pensions would be replaced, depending on the individual case, by a rehabilitation allowance or a disability allowance; and finally, that the correct re-categorisation of beneficiaries of disability pension necessitated an individualised review of the condition of all those involved, including those having obtained a final court judgment establishing their degree of disability.

The applicant does not state whether he has applied for the reassessment within the statutory deadline, whether it has already taken place or whether its outcome is prejudicial to his pecuniary situation.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains about the perceived loss of his disability pension established by a final court judgment and that it would be transformed into another allowance only after a review. He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Articles 6, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.

 

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES




  Have domestic remedies been exhausted in the case in view of the fact that the reassessment of the applicant’s condition does not appear to have taken place as yet?

 




  Is the fact that a final and binding court judgment was effectively set aside due to the operation of a new law compatible with the principle of legal certainty inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999‑VII)?

 




  Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?

 

If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see ImmobiliareSaffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?