Lessons from the Case of Pannon Plakát Kft. and Others v. Hungary Regarding the Right to Property

Abstract

This article examines the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in Pannon Plakát Kft. and Others v. Hungary and its implications for the interpretation of the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned legislative restrictions on roadside advertising structures located outside built-up areas, which significantly affected the applicants’ business activities. The judgment is noteworthy not only because it addresses the limits of state regulation in the field of property use, but also because it highlights the close relationship between property protection and economic freedom. The analysis explores the reasoning of both the ECtHR and the Hungarian Constitutional Court, drawing attention to their different approaches to proportionality, compensation, and the assessment of public-interest objectives. The case also raises broader questions about legal certainty, transitional periods, and the role of compensation in
situations that do not amount to formal deprivation of property. It is argued that the judgment reflects an evolving understanding of “control of use” within the Convention system, where compensation is becoming an increasingly important consideration even in cases involving regulatory restrictions rather than expropriation.