CASE OF PARTNERS 2000 KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)
Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
6. The first applicant, Partners 2000 Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company with its seat in Nyárliget. It is owned and run by the second applicant. The second applicant is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Sopron. The third applicant is the second applicant’s wife, who was born in 1973 and lives in Sopron. The fourth applicant is the second and third applicants’ minor child, born in 2000. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender. Legal persons were not entitled to apply. 10. 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. 11. The first applicant, Partners 2000 Kft had been active in tobacco retail for several years. Since, however, it was not entitled to apply for a concession under the new law, the second applicant applied personally for one, on several occasions. However, ND Zrt turned down his applications, informing him that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decisions said that his applications did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings. 12. No compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood. The refusals, such as those of Mr Györkös, were not subject to any legal remedy. 13. The applicants submitted that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been doing tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence.