ANDREI against Romania and 10 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   May 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 53351/22 László TEMESI 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

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

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

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 54294/14 Niculaie PÎRVU against Romania and 23 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 4834/20 Zoltán HORVÁTH against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

Following the eviction Daniel had not returned to school.     2.

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

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

line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .sE95BC345 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width

12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sFF075836 { margin-right

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

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

.sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications no. 26676/14 and 30999/14 Antonio CIOFFI against Romania and Ioan Daniel

affirmative answer to the first question, does the total prohibition on begging as contained in Article 23 of the criminal code of the Canton of Vaud constitute an interference with the applicants’ right

font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD1D5582E { width:87.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s501B3C1F { width:8.26%; border-right

:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:

impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right