vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 29134/20 Piroska JURÁS against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

{ margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 26027/16 Daniel

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 27524/23 KESZO-ELIT BT against Hungary and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

padding:1.02pt 5.03pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42701/15 Constantin GHIURCĂ against Romania and 13 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 28706/23 Róbert HORNYÁK against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 54563/21 Bertalan BALOG against Hungary and 8 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 54518/20 Rozália GYÖRGY against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

He relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Osmanoğlu v.

Freedoms (“the   Convention”) by an Italian national, Mrs Daniela Capellini (“the   applicant”), on 29 November 2000. 2.

They had therefore also been denied the right to an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 6(1) and 13. The Court declared the application admissible in March 2005.

Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A.

He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).

YOUR FRIEND S.R.L. against Romania and 11 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   November   2015 as a Committee composed of

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

The Arcade Ban does not provide for the interested parties any right to be heard, or a right to appeal or otherwise challenge the revocation of the respective licences to operate arcades.

uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33794/14 Daniela

UZEA and Others against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   February 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,

Daniele. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable delay in deciding her civil claims.

  Was the second and the third applicants’ right to life guaranteed by Article   2 of the Convention breached in the present case (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v.

Daniele. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party.