4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Balatonszabadi. 5.  On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012. 6.  According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013. 7.  Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender. 8.  The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013, with entry into force on 1 July 2013. Government Decree no. 181/2013. (VI.7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published on 8 June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process, the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013. The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself. 9.  The applicant, a tobacco retailer active in this business since 2008, applied for a concession and paid the relevant application fee. 10.  On 10 July 2013 the applicant was informed, in a letter sent by ND Zrt, that she had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decision said that her application did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings. The Government submitted that her application scored 59 out of 120.
No compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood. 11.  The refusal was not subject to any legal remedy. The applicant submitted that she pursued a constitutional complaint, and that although the outcome was not known on introducing the present application, this legal avenue could not in any case provide material redress. 12.  The applicant further submitted that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been engaged in tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence.