a) Hungary / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 30-06-1995 / e) 45/1995 / f) / g) Magyar Közlöny (Official Gazette), 56/1995 / h) .
Keywords of the Systematic Thesaurus:
General Principles - Social State.
General Principles - Proportionality.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Right to property.
Fundamental Rights - Economic, social and cultural rights - Right to social security.
Keywords of the alphabetical index:
Insurance, social, mandatory.
Mandatory insurance limits both an individual's autonomy to act and the traditional material base of such autonomy, which is the right to property. This does not imply an unconstitutional limitation on the right to property, if it is necessary and proportionate and does not affect the essential content of the right to property.
The Economic Stabilisation Act provides for an obligation to pay social security contributions at 44 % with respect to payment of author's fees, remuneration of performing artists and fees for intellectual property.
According to Article 70/E of the Constitution, «the citizens of the Republic of Hungary are entitled to social security; they are entitled to receive benefits necessary to sustain themselves in old age, sickness, disablement, widowhood, orphanhood and if they become unemployed as a result of circumstances beyond their control. The right to benefits is satisfied through social insurance and the system of social security institutions».
The Constitutional Court decided that in the case of social security contributions paid after fees for intellectual property, where the insurance component is absent, this obligation falls outside the scope of social insurance, the employees have no related interest, and it does not give rise to any kind of social security benefit. The provisions in question therefore attach the payment obligation not to an insured status but to certain kinds of contracts and services imposed by the law that place a unilateral burden on the rights of the payer. Such a payment obligation imposes a disproportionate constraint on the right to property without promoting the realisation of any other right or obligation. The Court therefore declared the provision unconstitutional.