4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Üröm. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicant is a retired truck driver. Between 1982 and 1989 he worked for an Italian company, but as the employee of Hungarocamion, a Hungarian transportation company. The Italian company paid Hungarocamion a certain monthly sum corresponding to the work performed by the applicant. For his part, the applicant received the salary from Hungarocamion stipulated in his employment contract. 7.  Since he allegedly did not receive the whole sum transferred by the Italian company to Hungarocamion, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Italian company. The Italian courts partly found for him on 19 March 1997 and, finally at second-instance, on 10 May 2001. 8.  Meanwhile, on 30 April 1993 the applicant brought an action against Hungarocamion before the Budapest Labour Court, alleging that the respondent had not transferred to him all the money which it had received from its Italian partner as his salary. 9.  On 2 February, 31 August and 26 October 1994 the Labour Court held hearings. 10.  Upon the applicant’s request, the Labour Court suspended the proceedings on 10 November 1994 in view of the applicant’s Italian court case. The proceedings only resumed on 7 February 2000 at the applicant’s request. 11.  On 15 February 2000 the Labour Court invited the applicant to submit the certified translation of the documents produced in the Italian proceedings. The applicant complied with this order on 24 May 2000. 12.  On 30 May and 10 October 2001, 9 January, 17 April and 11 September 2002, 28 May and 10 September 2003, the Labour Court held hearings. 13.  On 24 September 2003 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the respondent’s salary policy had been in compliance with the law in force at the relevant time. The Labour Court relied on documentary evidence and testimony given by witnesses and the parties. 14.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 6 May 2004. 15.  On 4 July 2004 the applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 13 April 2005.