Access to justice in environmental matters

1.1. Decisions, acts or omissions concerning specific activities falling within the scope of EU environmental legislation outside the scope of the EIA and IED Directives[1]

1) What are the applicable national statutory rules on standing for both individuals and NGOs wishing to obtain a) an administrative review and b) a legal challenge before a national court in respect of the procedures for adopting the decision, act or omission and its content (in particular, the conditions to be fulfilled and any time-limits that apply to the submission of a challenge)? How effective is the level of access to national courts in light of the CJEU case law and any related national case law?

In administrative proceedings, according to Article 10(1) of the Ákr. the term “client” (therefore a person who can have legal standing) covers any natural or legal person, or other entity, whose rights or legitimate interests are directly affected by a case, who is the subject of any data contained in official records and registers, or who is subject to regulatory inspection. Furthermore, an act or government decree may define the persons and entities to be treated as clients in connection with certain specific types of case.

In environmental administrative proceedings, the above-mentioned provision of the Ákr. ensures the legal standing of individuals whose legal interests are directly affected, and Article 98 of the Kvt. provides that environmental associations can also participate as clients. Other legal entities, members of ad hoc groups or foreign NGOs may be treated as clients if the conditions laid down by Article 10(1) of the Ákr. are met.

Since 1 March 2020, in administrative environmental cases there is a single-instance procedure, i.e. the decision of a second-instance environmental authority cannot be requested. However, clients may bring to the court an administrative action against the decision. As a main rule, a final decision of the authority taken on the merits of the case can be challenged before the court within 30 days. With regard to proceedings which are considered as “environmental administrative proceedings”, access to national courts is considered effective, as no major barriers hinder access to justice related to legal standing. However, as explained above, the proceedings of the water management authority or the forest authority are not regarded as environmental administrative proceedings, unless the environmental authority participates in that procedure as an expert authority. In such cases, as a main rule environmental NGOs do not have legal standing and cannot bring an action to the court.

2) What is the scope of the administrative review (if applicable) and the judicial review (if applicable)? Does it cover both procedural and substantive legality?

In administrative environmental cases where the environmental authority is the main (decision-making) authority, there is a single-instance procedure, i.e. the decision of a second-instance environmental authority cannot be requested. However, clients may bring to the court an administrative action against the decision. In proceedings where the environmental authority is acting as an expert authority, which thereby also renders the matter an administrative environmental case, the right to appeal – similar to standing – depends on the specific provisions of the relevant legislation. Where the decision can be appealed, the administrative review covers both procedural and substantive legality of the procedure and the decision, regardless of the content of the appeal.

Clients may bring an administrative action against definitive decisions (decision taken in a single-instance procedure or on second instance, if appeal was possible). According to the Kp., in administrative court cases the court must judge the dispute within the frameworks of the petition of claim, applications and legal statements submitted by the parties. The court will take account of the applications and statements in accordance with their content and not in accordance with their specification in terms of form. The court may order an examination or taking of evidence ex officio only in cases specified by law. The judicial review may cover both procedural and substantive legality depending on the content of the petition of claim.

3) Before filing a court action, is there a requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures?

If the decision can be appealed, an administrative action may be brought if either of the entitled parties filed an appeal and the appeal has already been determined. Since 1 March 2020, in administrative environmental cases the decision of a second-instance environmental authority cannot be requested. Clients may bring to the court an administrative action against the decision.

4) In order to have standing before the national courts is it necessary to participate in the public consultation phase of the administrative procedure – to make comments, participate at hearing, etc.?

In general, it is not required by national legislation that participation in the public consultation phase is necessary to have legal standing before the court. In this respect, the provisions of the Kp. must be taken into account. Any person whose rights or lawful interests are directly affected by the administrative activity (i.e. the decision), or any non-governmental organisation, in the cases specified in law or government decree, that has been pursuing its registered activity in order to protect any fundamental right or enforce any public interest in a geographical territory affected by the administrative activity for at least one year, if the administrative activity affects its registered activity, has the right to institute an action.

5) Are there some grounds/arguments precluded from the judicial review phase?

There are no explicit provisions precluding arguments from the judicial review phase. The subject of the administrative dispute is the lawfulness of the act of the authority regulated by administrative law or the omission of such act.

6) Fair, equitable - what meaning is given to equality of arms in the national jurisdiction?

Fair and equitable proceedings in relation to access to justice in environmental administrative procedures are ensured by the general provisions of the Ákr., which stipulate that administrative authorities must adhere to the principles of legality. Authorities must exercise their powers under the principle of due course of the law. This means that cases must be handled professionally and in good faith, having regard to the objectives of simplicity and cooperation with clients, in due observation of the right to equality before the law and the principle of equal treatment, without undue discrimination, bias or prejudice. Administrative authorities are responsible for ascertaining that the client and other parties to the proceedings are properly informed of their rights and obligations.

In accordance with the basic principles of court proceedings, all clients have equal rights, and the court must adjudge the dispute in fair, concentrated and cost-effective proceedings. The court must, in such a manner and by means of the tools stipulated by law, contribute to enabling the parties and other persons in the lawsuit to exercise their procedural rights and fulfil their obligations.

7) How is the notion of “timely” implemented by the national legislation?

The Ákr., the Pp. and the Kp. entered into force in 2018 and these new legislations reformed the provisions on time limits in order to accelerate the administrative proceedings and make the judicial review of administrative decisions (administrative actions) more concentrated.

As regards the proceedings of administrative courts, the Kp. stipulates strict time limits for certain procedural steps (forwarding the case documentation to the court for examination of the statement of claim, adjudication of the petitions for immediate legal protection, setting the date of the court hearing etc.). A court hearing can be postponed only under the conditions stipulated by this Code. The timelines mentioned are aimed at most judgments being delivered within a reasonable time.

8) Is injunctive relief available? If yes what are the procedural requirements in order to be eligible for this? Are there special rules applicable to each sector apart from the general national provisions?

The general provisions on injunctive relief are provided by the Kp. Any person whose rights or lawful interests are injured by the administrative activity may request immediate legal protection from the court. The petition must be lodged with the court if it is not filed together with the statement of claim submitted to the authority. The petition must specify in detail the reasons for the necessity of immediate legal protection and the documents for verifying them must be attached. The facts providing grounds for the petition must be substantiated. There are no special rules applicable in this regard.

9) What are the cost rules to bring a challenge on access to justice in these areas? What are the possible consequences if one loses a case before court? What are the safeguards against the costs being prohibitive, and do these include express statutory reference to a requirement that costs should not be prohibitive?

The costs which must be taken into consideration when filing a lawsuit with the administrative court in access to justice matters are the duty and the legal fees. As a main rule, the duty on administrative actions is 30,000 HUF (ca. 85 EUR), which must be paid by the party submitting the petition of claim. Legal fees can also be requested to be paid by the unsuccessful party as a court cost. The amount of this may be reduced by the court.

The main rule is that the court costs of the successful party (including the duty) must be covered by the unsuccessful party. Where a party only succeeds in part, it must cover the costs of the opposing party in proportion to the loss. The co-litigants cover the costs of court proceedings jointly and severally.

In the case of the settlement of the parties, the party agreed upon by the parties pays the other party’s court costs. If there is no agreement in this regard, the court costs of the successful party to the settlement must be covered by the unsuccessful party to the settlement. If the ratio of winning and losing cannot be determined, neither of the parties will be required to cover the court costs.

If the proceedings are terminated, the court costs of the defendant must be covered by the plaintiff. However, where the proceedings are terminated due to withdrawal and the withdrawal took place because the defendant satisfied the claim after the opening of proceedings, the court costs of the plaintiff are to be covered by the defendant. Furthermore, if the proceedings are terminated due to death or dissolution, neither party is required to cover the court costs of the opposing party.

Where a party fails in carrying out certain acts during the proceedings, is delayed in certain acts without justification, fails to meet a deadline or time limit, or causes unnecessary expenses to the opposing party in any other way, either during the proceedings or beforehand, said party must cover those costs irrespective of the outcome of the action.

The party might be entitled to different types of cost allowances:

• subject-specific and individual cost exemption;
• subject-specific and individual right for the suspension of payment of costs;
• subject-specific and individual duty exemption;
• right for the suspension of payment of specific duty;
• reduced duty;
• exemption from the prepayment of the advocacy fee, or the payment thereof.

In general, the party is entitled to individual cost exemption and individual right for the suspension of payment of costs upon request based on their income and financial situation, whereas individual duty exemption will be granted ex officio. Specific allowances can be based on the subject matter of the proceedings, and the allowance of duty reduction will be granted ex officio upon the occurrence of specific procedural events.

Under cost exemption, the party is exempt from the advance payment of duties, the prepayment of costs incurred during the proceedings, save as otherwise provided for by law, the payment of any unpaid duty and the recovery of expenses advanced by the State, and the requirement to provide security for court costs.

The right for the suspension of payment of costs covers exemption from the advance payment of duties and from the prepayment of costs incurred during the proceedings. In the case of partial individual right for the suspension of payment of costs, the allowance applies to a specific percentage of duties and expenses, or to duties, and/or to itemised specific expenses.

It should be noted that cost exemption does not exempt the party from covering the unpaid duties and the costs of any unnecessary procedural act.

The decision on the authorisation of individual cost allowance and the individual right for the suspension of payment of costs and for the withdrawal of authorised cost allowances lies with the court. The resolution rejecting the application for authorisation and the decision for the withdrawal of an authorised cost allowance may be appealed separately.

The specific rule in administrative court proceedings is that in a model action[2] the court may provide that the court costs incurred in the scope of taking of evidence, or a part of such costs, are to be advanced or borne by the State.

The amount of the duty (30,000 HUF – 85 EUR) cannot be considered as being prohibitive. Furthermore, in Hungary associations and funds are exempt from the obligation to pay duties. Therefore, in administrative court proceedings NGOs should count with legal fees and – if applicable – expert fees.

1.2. Decisions, acts or omissions concerning the administrative procedures to be followed to comply with national implementing legislation for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC[3]

1) What are the applicable national statutory rules on standing for both individuals and NGOs wishing to obtain a) an administrative review and b) a legal challenge before a national court in respect of the procedures for adopting the decision, act or omission (in particular, the conditions to be fulfilled and any time limits that apply to the submission of a challenge)? How effective is the level of access to national courts in light of the CJEU case law and any related national case law?

According to national law, plans or programmes (including land-use plans) may be adopted by different legal measures, i.e. by law or by a public administrative measure without legal force. Challenging the legality of laws and/or public administrative measures by a natural person or by an organisation is possible by means of a constitutional complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court. Where the legal measure adopting the plan or programme is contrary to the Fundamental Law and this infringes a fundamental right of a natural or legal person, for example the right to a healthy environment laid down by the Fundamental Law, the Constitutional Court is entitled to annul the contested provision.

A person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if, due to the application of a legal regulation contrary to the Fundamental Law in their judicial proceedings

• their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, and
• the possibilities for legal remedy (not including the review procedure of the Supreme Court as extraordinary legal remedy) have already been exhausted or legal remedy is not possible.

By exception, Constitutional Court proceedings may also be initiated if, due to the application of a legal provision contrary to the Fundamental Law, or when such legal provision becomes effective, rights were violated directly, without a judicial decision, and there is no procedure for legal remedy designed to repair the violation of rights, or the petitioner has already exhausted the possibilities for remedy. In these proceedings, the Constitutional Court may also examine the constitutionality of a judicial decision.

The Constitutional Court will admit constitutional complaints if a conflict with the Fundamental Law significantly affects the judicial decision, or if the case raises constitutional law issues of fundamental importance.

Constitutional complaints may be submitted within 60 days of receipt of the contested decision, or within 180 days of entry into force of the legal regulation contrary to the Fundamental Law. If the decision is not communicated, the time limit for submitting constitutional complaints will be 60 days from the date of becoming aware of the decision or from the date of the violation of rights guaranteed by the Fundamental Law. The Constitutional Court may also rule on constitutional complaints that were submitted after the time limit due to the submitter’s inability to submit the complaint due to a circumstance beyond their control, providing that the petitioner submits an application for extension along with the complaint within 15 days of the termination of the obstacle. However, no Constitutional Court proceedings may be initiated 180 days after the communication of the decision, the violation of the right guaranteed by the Fundamental Law and entry into force of the legal regulation that is contrary to the Fundamental Law.

The Constitutional Court must decide on constitutional complaints within a reasonable time. In practice, it is not uncommon for proceedings of the Constitutional Court to take years.

2) What is the scope of the administrative review (if applicable) and the judicial review (if applicable)? Does it cover both procedural and substantive legality?

The Constitutional Court examines whether the rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, which may include infringement of both procedural and substantive norms.

3) Before filing a court action, is there a requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures?

A constitutional complaint may be submitted to the Constitutional Court if the possibilities for legal remedy (not including the review procedure of the Supreme Court as extraordinary legal remedy) have already been exhausted or legal remedy is not possible.

4) In order to have standing before the national courts is it necessary to participate in the public consultation phase of the administrative procedure – to make comments, participate at hearing, etc.?

A person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated.

5) Is injunctive relief available? If yes what are the procedural requirements in order to be eligible for this? Are there special rules applicable to each sector apart from the general national provisions?

No injunctive relief is available.

6) What are the cost rules to bring a challenge on access to justice in these areas? What are the possible consequences if one loses a case before court? What are the safeguards against the costs being prohibitive and do these include express statutory reference to a requirement that costs should not be prohibitive?

The proceedings of the Constitutional Court are free of charge. The applicant must bear their costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

1.3. Decisions, acts or omissions concerning the administrative procedures to be followed to comply with the public participation requirements of Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention in respect of plans and programmes not submitted to the procedures set out in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC[4]

1) What are the applicable national statutory rules on standing for both individuals and NGOs wishing to obtain a) an administrative review and b) a legal challenge before a national court in respect of the procedures for adopting the decision, act or omission (in particular, the conditions to be fulfilled and any time limits that apply to the submission of a challenge)? How effective is the level of access to national courts in light of the CJEU case law and any related national case law?

Legal standing in administrative and/or judicial review of plans and programmes depends on the legal form by which the plan or programme was adopted. If the act adopting a plan or programme is considered as a legal measure or a public administrative measure without legal force and the relevant conditions are met, a constitutional complaint can be lodged with the Constitutional Court as explained under Chapter 2.2. point 1.

However, plans and programmes subject to Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention which are not considered as such acts cannot be challenged.

2) What is the scope of the administrative review (if applicable) and the judicial review (if applicable)? Does it cover both procedural and substantive legality?

The Constitutional Court examines whether the rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, which may include infringement of both procedural and substantive norms.

3) Before filing a court action, is there a requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures?

A constitutional complaint may be submitted to the Constitutional Court if the possibilities for legal remedy (not including the review procedure of the Supreme Court as extraordinary legal remedy) have already been exhausted or legal remedy is not possible.

4) In order to have standing before the national courts is it necessary to participate in the public consultation phase of the administrative procedure – to make comments, participate at hearing, etc.?

A person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated.

5) Is injunctive relief available? If yes what are the procedural requirements in order to be eligible for this? Are there special rules applicable to each sector apart from the general national provisions?

No injunctive relief is available.

6) What are the cost rules to bring a challenge on access to justice in these areas? What are the possible consequences if one loses a case before court? What are the safeguards against the costs being prohibitive and do these include express statutory reference to a requirement that costs should not be prohibitive?

The proceedings of the Constitutional Court are free of charge. The applicant must bear their costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

1.4. Decisions, acts or omissions also concerning plans and programmes required to be prepared under EU environmental legislation[5]

1) What are the applicable national statutory rules on standing for both individuals and NGOs wishing to obtain a) an administrative review and b) a legal challenge before a national court in respect of the content of the plan (in particular, the conditions to be fulfilled and any time limits that apply to the submission of a challenge)? How effective is the level of access to national courts in light of the CJEU case law and any related national case law?

Legal standing in administrative and/or judicial review of plans and programmes depends on the legal form by which the plan or programme was adopted. If the act adopting a plan or programme is considered as a legal measure or a public administrative measure without legal force and the relevant conditions are met, a constitutional complaint can be lodged with the Constitutional Court as explained under Chapter 2.2. point 1.

However, plans and programmes which are not considered as such acts cannot be challenged.

2) Does the form in which the plan or programme is adopted make a difference in terms of legal standing (see also Section 2.5 below)?

As explained under Point 1 legal standing in administrative and/or judicial review of plans and programmes depends on the legal form by which the plan or programme was adopted. If the act adopting a plan or programme is considered as a legal measure or a public administrative measure without legal force and the relevant conditions are met, a constitutional complaint can be lodged with the Constitutional Court as explained under Chapter 2.2. point 1.

3) What is the scope of the administrative review (if applicable) and the judicial review (if applicable)? Does it cover both procedural and substantive legality?

The Constitutional Court examines whether the rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, which may include infringement of both procedural and substantive norms.

4) Before filing a court action, is there a requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures?

A constitutional complaint may be submitted to the Constitutional Court if the possibilities for legal remedy (not including the review procedure of the Supreme Court as extraordinary legal remedy) have already been exhausted or legal remedy is not possible.

5) In order to have standing before the national courts is it necessary to participate in the public consultation phase of the administrative procedure – to make comments, participate at hearing, etc.?

A person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated.

6) Are there some grounds/arguments precluded from the judicial review phase?

Explicitly not, however the constitutional complaint must be based on the fact that the fundamental rights of the complainant were violated.

7) Fair, equitable - what meaning is given to equality of arms in the national jurisdiction?

In accordance with the basic principles of court proceedings, all clients have equal rights and the court must adjudge the dispute in fair, concentrated and cost-effective proceedings.

8) How is the notion of “timely” implemented by the national legislation?

The Constitutional Court must decide on constitutional complaints within a reasonable time. In practice, it is not uncommon for proceedings of the Constitutional Court to take years.

9) Is injunctive relief available? If yes what are the procedural requirements in order to be eligible for this? Are there special rules applicable to each sector apart from the general national provisions?

No injunctive relief is available.

10) What are the cost rules to bring a challenge on access to justice in these areas? What are the possible consequences if one loses a case before court? What are the safeguards against the costs being prohibitive and do these include express statutory reference to a requirement that costs should not be prohibitive?

Proceedings of the Constitutional Court are free of charge. The applicant must bear their costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

1.5. Executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative instruments used to implement EU environmental legislation and related EU regulatory acts[6]

1) What are the applicable national statutory rules on standing for both individuals and NGOs wishing to obtain a) an administrative review and b) a legal challenge before a national court in respect of the procedure for adopting or the content of the decision, act or omission of the national regulatory act (in particular, the conditions to be fulfilled and any time limits that apply to the submission of a challenge)? How effective is the level of access to national courts in light of the CJEU case law and any related national case law?

Similar to the cases covered by Chapters 2.2 to 2.4, executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative instruments – as legal measures or public administrative measures without legal force – can be challenged by a constitutional complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court if the conditions stipulated by the Act on the Constitutional Court are met. A person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if, due to the application of a legal regulation contrary to the Fundamental Law in their judicial proceedings

• their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, and
• the possibilities for legal remedy (not including the review procedure of the Supreme Court as extraordinary legal remedy) have already been exhausted or legal remedy is not possible.

By exception, Constitutional Court proceedings may also be initiated if, due to the application of a legal provision contrary to the Fundamental Law, or when such legal provision becomes effective, rights were violated directly, without a judicial decision, and there is no procedure for legal remedy designed to repair the violation of rights, or the petitioner has already exhausted the possibilities for remedy. In these proceedings, the Constitutional Court may also examine the constitutionality of a judicial decision.

The Constitutional Court will admit constitutional complaints if a conflict with the Fundamental Law significantly affects the judicial decision, or if the case raises constitutional law issues of fundamental importance.

Constitutional complaints may be submitted within 60 days of receipt of the contested decision, or within 180 days of entry into force of the legal regulation contrary to the Fundamental Law. If the decision is not communicated, the time limit for submitting constitutional complaints will be 60 days from the date of becoming aware of the decision or from the date of the violation of rights guaranteed by the Fundamental Law. The Constitutional Court may also rule on constitutional complaints that were submitted after the time limit due to the submitter’s inability to submit the complaint due to a circumstance beyond their control, providing that the petitioner submits an application for extension along with the complaint within 15 days of the termination of the obstacle. However, no Constitutional Court proceedings may be initiated 180 days after the communication of the decision, the violation of the right guaranteed by the Fundamental Law and entry into force of the legal regulation that is contrary to the Fundamental Law.

The Constitutional Court must decide on constitutional complaints within a reasonable time. In practice, it is not uncommon for proceedings of the Constitutional Court to take years.

2) What is the scope of the administrative review (if applicable) and the judicial review (if applicable)? Does it cover both procedural and substantive legality?

The Constitutional Court examines whether the rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, which may include infringement of both procedural and substantive norms.

3) Before filing a court action, is there a requirement of exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures?

A constitutional complaint may be submitted to the Constitutional Court if the possibilities for legal remedy (not including the review procedure of the Supreme Court as extraordinary legal remedy) have already been exhausted or legal remedy is not possible.

4) In order to have standing before the national courts is it necessary to participate in the public consultation phase of the administrative procedure – to make comments, participate at hearing, etc.?

A person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated.

5) Is injunctive relief available? If yes what are the procedural requirements in order to be eligible for this? Are there special rules applicable to each sector apart from the general national provisions?

No injunctive relief is available.

6) What are the cost rules to bring a challenge on access to justice in these areas? What are the possible consequences if one loses a case before court? What are the safeguards against the costs being prohibitive and do these include express statutory reference to a requirement that costs should not be prohibitive?

Proceedings of the Constitutional Court are free of charge. The applicant must bear their costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

7) Is it possible to bring a legal challenge before a national court concerning any related EU regulatory act with a view to a validity reference under Article 267 TFEU, and if so how[7]?

National legislation does not provide for legal challenge against EU regulatory acts before national courts.

---

[1] This category of case reflects recent case law of the CJEU such as Protect C-664/15, the Slovak brown bear case C-240/09, see as described under Commission Notice C/2017/2616 on access to justice in environmental matters

[2] If at least ten proceedings with an identical legal and factual base commence before the court, the court may – while providing the parties with a right to make a statement – decide to adjudge one of the cases in a model action and stay the rest of the proceedings until it adopts its decision concluding the proceedings. (Kp. Art. 33(1))

[3] The SEA Directive relates to plans and programmes. These are also covered by Article 7 and Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention.

[4] See findings under ACCC/C/2010/54 for an example of a plan not submitted to SEA but subject to the public participation requirements of Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention.

[5] These fall within the scope of both Article 7 and Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. See also relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as Case C-237/97, Janecek, and cases such as Boxus and Solvay C-128/09-C-131/09 and C-182/10, as referred to under the Commission Notice C/2017/2616 on access to justice in environmental matters.

[6] Such acts come within the scope of Article 8 and Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. An example of such an act concerns the decision of the national administration that featured in Case C-281/16, Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap, ECLI:EU:C:2017:774

[7] For an example of such a preliminary reference, see Case C-281/16, Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap, ECLI:EU:C:2017:774