This article discusses recent developments concerning the right to minimum subsistence as a matter of property protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. It starts with two recent cases: Bélané Nagy v. Hungary and Baczúr v. Hungary. In its judgments in these cases, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that, in determining whether an interference with a benefit is proportional, an important consideration is whether the individual still receives a subsistence minimum. It moreover held that a right to a (minimum) benefit can exist even if the conditions for receiving this benefit have not been met. Read together, Bélané Nagy and Baczúr flag an increasingly social interpretation of the property right enshrined in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR involving positive obligations and a focus on the neediest. On a closer look, however, the Court’s interpretation is not a very straightforward one. Judgments rendered after Bélané Nagy and Baczúr show that, although there is a clear trend to protect claimants’ means of subsistence, the relationship between property and a right to such means remains opaque, and the potential of a property right to guarantee the latter, limited. In this article, I present the recent case law against the background of the increasing significance of Article 1 P1 in the field of social security as well as the obstacles to protecting a subsistence minimum. I will delineate the questions that promise to haunt the Court in the cases to come and explore some of the answers it could formulate in this regard. It is argued that a positive right to a subsistence minimum is, for various reasons, unlikely to be developed as a matter of property protection under the Convention.

中文翻译：

---

欧洲人权法院下最低生活保障和财产保护的权利：永不相会的？

本文讨论了关于向最低生活保障作为知识产权保护的欧洲人权公约下的问题的权利最近的事态发展。它从最近的两个案例开始：Bélané Nagy 诉匈牙利和 Baczúr 诉匈牙利。在它在这些案件的判决，人权欧洲法院强调的是，在确定与利益的干扰是否是成比例的，一个重要的考虑是个人还是是否接收到最低生活费。此外它认为的（最小）利益的权利可能存在，即使没有被满足接受这项福利的条件。一起阅读，Bélané Nagy 和 Baczúr 标志着对《欧洲人权公约》第一议定书第 1 条所载财产权的日益社会化的解释，涉及积极的义务和对最有需要的人的关注。在仔细看看，不过，法院的解释是不是一个非常简单的一个。Bélané纳吉和Baczúr后作出的判决表明，虽然有一个明显的趋势，以维持生计的保护索赔人的手段，物业之间这种装置遗体不透明的权利和财产的潜在关系，对保证后者，有限。在这篇文章中，我将介绍近期的判例法对第1条P1在社会保障领域以及为保护最低生活费的障碍越来越重要的背景。我将划定许诺困扰法院在案件的问题来摸索出一些可能在这方面制定的答案。有人认为，到最低生活费积极正确的是，由于种种原因，