The applicants also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, alleging that their right to obtain the allowances in issue was a “possession” within the meaning of that Article.

On 28 January 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The applicant appealed against the decision concerning the parental rights. The file was transmitted to the court of appeal on 19 October 2001.

Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström, President,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and

Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Attila

margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Resolution ResDH(2004)50 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

26 October 2005 at the 940th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded

margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     Communicated on 16 September 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6215/14 Daniel

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 18168/25 Szabina SVECZ against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } „ SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 21827/25 János József FEKETE against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

} .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution ResDH(2002)14 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained about a breach of his rights to private and family life because he was unable to find out whether he was his son’s biological father as his

  16/11/2020 06/10/2020 5,100     24601/20 29/05/2020 Krisztián LAKATOS 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s

; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13325/20 Ádám MIODEK against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications

András Budapest 10/07/2020 03/04/2020 3,900     65053/19 09/12/2019 Krisztina FARKAS 04/12/1979 Karsai Dániel András Budapest 16/04/2020 27/07/2020 2,700     2603/20 25/12/2019 Ernő

Freedoms (“the Convention”) by fifteen Swedish nationals, Mr Paul Danell, Mr   Sven   Danell, Mr Per Grape, Mr Bengt-Olov Innala, Mr Krister Innala, Mr Olle Innala, Mr Olov Innala, Mr Tage Innala

font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right