Albert & Ors v Hungary - 5294/14 (Judgment : inadmissible shareholders' complaints about legislation in Hungary restructuring banks : Grand Chamber) [2020] ECHR 543 (07 July 2020)

Albert & Ors v Hungary - 5294/14 (Judgment : inadmissible shareholders' complaints about legislation in Hungary restructuring banks : Grand Chamber) [2020] ECHR 543 (07 July 2020)

The Court held that the acts complained of principally concerned the banks and not the applicants' shareholder rights as such. The applicants were not directly affected, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify disregarding the banks' separate legal personality. Therefore, the applicants could not claim to be victims under the Convention, and the application was inadmissible.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 543
Parties
Applicants: Albert and Others; Respondent: Hungary
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
07 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Grand Chamber Judgment on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible for 233 shareholders; application struck out for 4 shareholders who did not pursue their cases.
Legal Topics
Shareholder Rights, Corporate Personality, State Intervention in Banking Sector, Admissibility of Applications, Victim Status Under ECHR
Human Rights Law Banking Law Corporate Law Shareholder Rights Corporate Personality State Intervention in Banking Sector Admissibility of Applications Victim Status Under ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert and Others

Applicants

Hungary

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Grand Chamber Judgment on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants, as shareholders, were directly affected by the Integration Act and Amendments so as to claim victim status under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances justified piercing the corporate veil to allow shareholders to claim on behalf of the banks

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the acts complained of principally concerned the banks and not the applicants' shareholder rights as such. The applicants were not directly affected, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify disregarding the banks' separate legal personality. Therefore, the applicants could not claim to be victims under the Convention, and the application was inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible for 233 shareholders; application struck out for 4 shareholders who did not pursue their cases.

Orders

  • Application inadmissible for 233 shareholders under Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
  • Application struck out for 4 shareholders who withdrew.