4.  The applicant is a company limited by shares registered under Hungarian law. It has its seat in Budapest. 5.  On 31 May 2000 a property claim was brought against the applicant requesting it to pay mandate fees in the amount of 275 million Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 1,057,000 euros (EUR) at the time). 6.  On 6 June 2000 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the applicant, under section 187(1) of Act no. LIII of 1994 on Court Execution, to deposit on the bailiff’s trust account a security in the amount of HUF 275 million. The applicant appealed against the decision but this was to no avail. The money was deposited on the bailiff’s trust account on 27 March 2001. 7.  Under the law, such deposits yield no interest. 8.  The applicant requested to have the money released arguing that its financial situation was satisfactory, there was no need for such a deposit and that this measure contradicted the principle of economic rationality. 9.  The applicant’s request was dismissed on 8 May 2001. The Supreme Court as second-instance court upheld the decision on 8 November 2001. The applicant’s subsequent requests to have the money released, in exchange for other securities offered, were also turned down. 10.  After remittals on 27 November 2002 and 8 June 2007, on 16 October 2008 the Regional Court adopted a judgment, partly found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay HUF 137,280,000 (EUR 514,000 at the actual rate) plus interest accrued as of 6 January 2000. On 16 October 2009 and 29 April 2010, respectively, the Budapest Court of Appeal and the Kúria upheld this judgment. 11.  Although the plaintiff succeeded only partly in the litigation, the amount actually payable by the applicant exceeded the amount of the entire deposit. This outcome was the consequence of the fact that whilst the applicant was ordered to pay accrued interest on the money due to the plaintiff in the amount of approximately HUF 189,500,000 (EUR 700,000 at the actual rate), its own money deposited on the bailiff’s trust account had yielded no interest. Ultimately, the applicant had to surrender the whole deposit and pay about another HUF 90 million (EUR 330,000). 12.  The applicant challenged the impugned provisions of Act no. LIII of 1994 on Court Execution before the Constitutional Court; but its constitutional complaint was dismissed on 7 June 2011. This court held that ‘interest’ as such was consideration for the ‘use’ of another person’s money; however, the authorities had not in any way ‘used’ the deposited amount. Furthermore, the Constitution did not provide any safeguards against the depreciation of an asset, including a deposit of money subject to inflation, and that such depreciation for economical or other reasons did not amount to a deprivation of property.