4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kunfehértó. 5.  On 28 March 1997 the applicant, a subcontractor of Telekábel Ltd. (“the Company”), initiated the liquidation of the Company before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, since the Company had become insolvent and not paid his invoices. 6.  On 10 September 1997 the Regional Court established the insolvency of the Company and ordered its liquidation. This decision gained binding force on 25 June 1998. The liquidation proceedings eventually involved thirty-one creditors in total. 7.  The debtor’s interim balance sheet was established on 1 March 2000. 8.  After adjudicating several complaints, on 21 October 2004 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court established the termination of the liquidation proceedings and dissolved the Company. This decision was served on the applicant on 20 January 2005. 9.  On 15 July 1997 the Company signed an agreement with one of its main customers to pay the latter a specific amount of money. It was stipulated that, in exchange, the customer would desist from any further claims. 10.  On 2 December 1999 the applicant and another creditor brought an action against the Company and the above-mentioned customer before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, requesting the court to rule the respondents’ agreement invalid. 11.  After a remittal, the Szeged Court of Appeal finally found in part for the plaintiffs on 27 February 2004. It further ordered the applicant to pay part of the court fees. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 April 2004. 12.  On 15 November 2004 the Bács-Kiskun County Duties Office requested the applicant to pay the court fees. On the applicant’s request, the enforcement of this decision was suspended until 31 October 2006 by the Duties Office on 7 October 2005. On 22 March 2007 the applicant’s salary was attached by the Tax Authority. The applicant lodged a demurrer of execution against the decision, which was dismissed. The enforcement proceedings are still pending. 13.  On 25 June 2002 the Tax Authority seized part of the payment which the applicant, in tax debt, had received as a result of his claim against the Company. 14.  On 5 April 2003 the Tax Authority, observing that the applicant still had some tax debts, ordered enforcement on his real estate. He did not lodge a demurrer of execution against this decision. 15.  On 13 May 2003 the Kiskunhalas Notary, noting that the applicant had not paid his tax debts, withdrew his private entrepreneur’s licence. He did not lodge an administrative appeal against this decision. 16.  On 23 March 2004 the Tax Authority also seized the applicant’s movable property. On 26 May 2004 part of the default interest on the tax debt was cancelled for reasons of equity. 17.  The applicant having finally paid the debt, the Tax Authority discontinued the enforcement proceedings on 11 November 2004. 18.  On 15 September 2005 the Tax Authority nevertheless requested the applicant to pay the default interest on the tax debt. On 25 May 2006 the applicant’s request to have this latter debt annulled was rejected by the Tax Authority. This decision was upheld by the National Tax Authority on 18 July 2006. The applicant did not seek judicial review of that decision. 19.  On 10 August 2005 the Kiskunhalas Notary notified the applicant that he owed some local tax. On 20 December 2005 the Notary warned the applicant that he should pay additional amounts of local tax. The applicant lodged a complaint against these impositions with the Bács-Kiskun County Administrative Office. 20.  On 27 February 2006 the Administrative Office rejected the complaint. 21.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant finally paid the debt. However, the Notary obliged him to pay default interest. 22.  Since he did not do so, the Kunfehértó Notary informed the applicant on 10 July 2006 that part of his pension would be attached in order to secure the payment of the default interest. 23.  The applicant did not lodge a demurrer of execution against the enforcement measures.