Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0324DEC004571812
24 mars 2015
24 mars 2015
xa0; All applicants complained that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of final courts decisions given in their favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0228DEC003141303
28 février 2006
28 février 2006
On 3 June 2003 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour to a bailiff.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0619DEC003511303
19 juin 2007
19 juin 2007
All judgments given in the applicant’s favour were not enforced due to the lack of funds in the respondent’s bank accounts.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0306DEC000943006
6 mars 2018
6 mars 2018
It appears that the judicial decision in favour of the applicants has not been fully enforced.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1021DEC007088012
21 octobre 2014
21 octobre 2014
THE LAW The applicant complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1120DEC005537416
20 novembre 2025
20 novembre 2025
It complained before the Court that the final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 23 March 2016, by which it set aside the lower courts’ judgments in its favour, amounted to a violation of its
Source officielle2ème Chambre
6710aa4fbe64d7e510244f7e
15 octobre 2024
15 octobre 2024
Portalis DBVM-V-B7H-LYTU N° Minute : C3 Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à la SELARL DECOMBARD & BARRET la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-191405
6 février 2019
6 février 2019
They have all obtained final judgments in their favour, according to which different state authorities were ordered to pay them certain sums.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187787
26 octobre 2018
26 octobre 2018
On various dates the applicants brought proceedings against private parties and obtained final court decisions in their favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-209987
15 avril 2021
15 avril 2021
ŞTİ. and Serpil ÖLCER against Turkey lodged on 12 March 2018 communicated on 15 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns non-execution of judicial decisions in favour of the
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-182280
23 mars 2018
23 mars 2018
§ 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that due to the delay and errors of the domestic courts in the enforcement proceedings instituted in 1994, the judgment rendered in her favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-166725
26 août 2016
26 août 2016
On an unspecified date a criminal investigation was launched against the applicants and five other people with the charge of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-247879
5 décembre 2025
5 décembre 2025
15551/24 Agim TORO against Albania lodged on 22 May 2024 communicated on 5 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a final court’s judgment issued in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0606DEC000169404
6 juin 2006
6 juin 2006
By letter of 22 July 2004, the applicant informed the Court that the judgment in his favour had been enforced without specifying the exact date of enforcement.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-219406
30 août 2022
30 août 2022
The applicant company, who was allowed to intervene in favour of the defendant administration concerning the two related proceedings brought by a private company against the administration with a view
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-196108
27 août 2019
27 août 2019
hand, two of the appeals were declared admissible on 11 and 14 January 2016 (proceedings no. 3067/2015 and 3038/2015 respectively), and the Supreme Court later rendered judgments in the applicant’s favour
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2223
10 avril 2008
10 avril 2008
15021/02) concerning the non-enforcement of a judgment debt in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0510JUD003461602
10 mai 2012
10 mai 2012
The District Court’s judgment of 20 December 2004 in the applicants’ favour accordingly became binding and enforceable. 15.
Source officiellesoc
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:SO10210
14 février 2018
14 février 2018
Z... les sommes de 10 000 euros à titre de rappel de primes et commissions sur l'année 2011/2012, 1 000 euros au titre des congés payés afférents, et y ajoutant, d'avoir condamné la société CHOMETTE FAVOR
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0127JUD003776304
27 janvier 2009
27 janvier 2009
On 23 October 2001 the Botanica District Court ruled in favour of the applicants.
Source officiellePage 10 sur 606