4.  In October 1984 eleven artists founded the “Zichy Mihály” Art Gallery. In December 1984 the Hungarian Art’s Fund, pursuant to Government Decree No. 83/1982, approved the gallery’s foundation as a “creative art community”. 5.  In 1989 Parliament passed the Associations Act, requiring the registration of associations. 6.  As of 1 October 1992, due to a modification in the Government Decree, the supervision of the applicant was to be exercised by the Ministry of Culture and Education. 7.  On 29 April 1993 the Constitutional Court declared the relevant parts of the Government Decree unconstitutional and annulled them. Consequently, the registration rules of the Associations Act became applicable to the applicant as well. 8.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant requested that its legal personality be acknowledged by the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant refused to submit a request for registration, reasoning that it was the Ministry’s duty to do so. 9.  On 23 April 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The Regional Court held that the request of the applicant, whose legal personality had ceased pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision, had not complied with the substantive and formal requirements set out in the Associations Act. On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, upheld the Regional Court’s decision. 10.  On 14 October 1997 the Supreme Court, in review proceedings, quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s legal personality had not ceased because of the Constitutional Court’s decision. 11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 January 1998 the Budapest Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed that the Regional Court require the applicant to adjust its statute to the requirements of the Associations Act. On 23 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the applicant’s registration. 12.  On 8 March 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 13.  On 12 April 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to submit supplementary documents. The applicant failed to comply with this order. 14.  On 10 July 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On 31 July 2000 the applicant appealed. 15.  On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the order and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 16.  On 28 January 2002 the Budapest Regional Court registered the applicant association.