4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Budapest. 5.  The applicant was a professional staff member of the Hungarian Police since 1994. 6.  In early 1997 she was warned that her employment might be terminated in a few months; therefore, on her initiation, she was interviewed at another police department. 7.  As a ‘top executive’ (kiemelt főelőadó), she was found suitable for a new position within the counter-terrorism unit. 8.  From 1998 onwards, she was ordered to undergo, annually, a medical aptitude test of a kind different from what she had formerly been subjected to. This test was meant for the position of a ‘member of counter-terrorism unit’ (terrorelhárító beosztású). 9.  On 13 February 2001 she commenced her regular annual medical examination but, by the order of her supervisor, she interrupted the test. However, there were still two particular examinations outstanding. 10.  Subsequently, the applicant was ordered to take part, afresh, in another medical examination on 27 May 2001. It appears that the reason for this was that the change in her aptitude test regime back in 1997 had not been correctly applied. 11.  As a result of this latter examination, she was qualified as ‘unfit’ for the position she held and dismissed from service. 12.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant lodged an action with the labour court claiming that her employment had been unlawfully terminated and seeking damages. 13.  The Budapest Labour Court found for the applicant on 21 September 2005 and ordered the employer to pay compensation. 14.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Labour Court on 14 April 2006. 15.  In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court rejected the applicant’s action on 16 January 2008. The court relied on the parties’ and other witnesses’ testimonies, a medical expert’s report and other documentary evidence and was satisfied that the applicant’s service had been justifiably and lawfully terminated. 16.  On appeal, the Regional Court upheld this decision on 15 October 2008. 17.  The Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance decision on 7 April 2010.