sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28233/16 Daniel

:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width

Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Gilberto Felici , President ,   Péter Paczolay,   Raffaele Sabato , 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

TRIVANOVIĆ against Serbia and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   June   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anne

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

text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right

  He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Kaszczyniec v.

font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 28439/21 Lóránt Vilmos SZELECZKI against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

The applicant complained primarily under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, and Article 14 taken together with Article 8, that she had lost custody and full parental rights over her child because judge

They further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant’s rights guaranteed under other provisions of the Convention.

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

With regard to the grant of employment rights, it stated that the applicant was no longer entitled to work in the United Kingdom because he had exhausted his appeal rights.

  Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 May 2001 and declared admissible on 3 May 2005.

They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. THE LAW 1.

Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the length of their detention pending trial.

} .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 44750/20 Gerben Jelmer DOORNBOSCH against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

font-weight:bold }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44593/15 Antal-Florin SZASZ against Romania and 2 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6696/16 Miklós TÓTH against Hungary (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 19385/24 Attila KISS against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights