FINAL 10/04/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision

The Constitutional Court was of the view that abrogating the authorisation requirement would, on the one hand, expose persons interviewed by the press to the risk of

Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the wording of Article 70 of the Constitutional Court Act 1993 (see paragraph 13 above, in particular Article 70 § 2

The applicant complained that his detention at Budapest Prison in overcrowded cells amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment which infringed Article 3 of

Indeed, according to the decision of 20 July 2004 (see paragraphs 54-61 above), while establishing, with reference to the relevant laws and by-laws, that it was

The second applicant appealed to the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole amounted to

The CTU acknowledged that his initial conclusions (of July 2008) had to be altered, having regard to the application lodged before the Court by the first applicant; as

Following an overall examination of the applicant’s case, the Court concludes that the applicant has failed to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating that there

The Court therefore finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the two applicants as regards their right to correspondence