disclose their membership of the freemasons in a case where one of the parties is also a freemason: inadmissible The applicant was appointed executor and beneficiary under the will of B., a freemason, who died

He died on 20 April 2010. Mr   and   Mrs   Imre   Ambrus are his heirs. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   L.

On 18   November 2020 the Government informed the Registry that applicant had died.

The first applicant died after lodging the current application and the second applicant expressed his wish to continue the proceedings both on his behalf and on behalf of the first applicant.

On 26 January 2010 the second applicant gave birth to A. who died a day later in Zabok General Hospital.

admissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Effectiveness of constitutional complaint: admissible The applicants are the wives and mothers of sailors who died

The other one had died in the meantime. Law : There were no reasonable grounds on which to believe that the 1979 plan would be realised in the foreseeable future.

In their observations of 22 February 2018 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 14 August 2016.

In particular, he complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) that his conviction of murder was based on the statements by his co-defendant who had died before the jury trial commenced and whom he had no opportunity

The second applicant died on 6 August 2008. The first applicant expressed the wish to pursue the application on behalf of her late husband.

On 12 January 2021 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died.

On 8 October 2013 the applicant died.

The parents of the young man who had died in the same way as the applicant’s son obtained a judgment from the Supreme Court in which the State was held liable for failing in its duty to supervise the beach

On 24 January 2020 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 12 October 2019 and further requested the Court to strike out the application.

In their observations, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 8 June 2017 and further requested the Court to strike out the application.

By letter dated on 23 December 2015, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died. A copy of the Government’s letter was sent to the applicant’s address for any comment.

On 8 March 2013 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in which they, inter alia , informed the Registry that the applicant had died

By letter of 12   April 2013 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that on an unspecified date in November 2012 the applicant had died, that none of his relatives expressed a wish to

He died on 7   November 2015, after having lodged this application with the Court on 5   August 2015. He was represented before the Court by   Mr   Š.

He died on 1 March 2011. Mrs Viktória Hüttl is his heir and successor in respect of the application. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Fazekas, a lawyer practising in Budapest.