4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest. 5.  On 22 February 2002 the applicant, then head of the Budapest Public Administration Authority, was dismissed from the civil service, as a disciplinary measure. In the ensuing labour action the parties reached a friendly settlement on 22 March 2002; the applicant was reinstated and obtained damages. However, on the same day, the Prime Minister revoked his mandate to preside over the Authority. As a consequence, the applicant left the Authority. 6.  From this labour dispute, four sets of proceedings ensued. On 2 May 2002 the applicant brought a labour action, claiming unlawful revocation of his mandate. In parallel, the Authority brought a civil action against the applicant, claiming the invalidity of the friendly settlement and seeking the reimbursement of the compensation received by the applicant. The applicant also brought labour proceedings, claiming the unlawfulness of the disciplinary measure imposed on him on 22 February 2002 as well as his salary arrears. 7.  The friendly settlement was annulled by a final judgment of the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, on 3 November 2005. 8.  On 2 February 2010 the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, adopted a final judgment establishing the unlawfulness of the revocation of the applicant’s mandate on 22 March 2002. 9.  In the labour action concerning the disciplinary measure, the Zalaegerszeg Labour Court found for the applicant in an interim judgment on 3 April 2007 and established the unlawfulness of the sanction. 10.  As regards the applicant’s claim for salary arrears and the Authority’s action for the repayment of compensation, the proceedings appear to be still pending before the Kúria and the Budapest Surroundings High Court, respectively.