4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest. 5.  On 4 December 1995 the applicant complained to the Budapest III District Municipality about the nuisance her neighbour was causing by using her flat as a hairdressing salon. On 5 March 1996 the Municipality dismissed the neighbour’s request for leave to use the flat in question as a hairdressing salon. The decision was upheld by the Budapest Administrative Office on 2 May 1996. The neighbour sought judicial review. The applicant, as a person whose lawful interest was at stake, was party to these and the ensuing administrative proceedings, under section 3(4) of the Code of Administrative Procedure as in force at the material time. 6.  On 29 April 1997 the Pest Central District Court quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority. 7.  On 28 August 1998 the District Municipality issued the permit requested by the neighbour. On 3 February 1999 the Budapest Administrative Office quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority. 8.  The District Municipality again issued the permit in question on 31 May 1999. On 24 September 1999 the Budapest Administrative Office quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority. 9.  On 23 April 2001 the District Municipality discontinued the administrative proceedings. On 19 July 2001 this decision was quashed by the Budapest Administrative Office. 10.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 29 October 2001 the District Municipality prohibited the neighbour from continuing to use the flat as a hairdressing salon. On 4 January 2002 this decision was upheld by the Budapest Administrative Office. 11.  The neighbour sought judicial review. On 4 November 2003 the applicant’s intervention in these proceedings was allowed. 12.  On 26 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the prohibition, observing that the administrative authorities had never actually completed the principal proceedings concerning the neighbour’s request for leave to use the flat as a hairdressing salon. 13.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 10 June 2005 the District Municipality issued the leave requested. On 28 June 2005 the applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 1 August 2005. 14.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant sought judicial review under section 327(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the information currently in the case file, the proceedings are still pending; a hearing took place on 12 December 2006.