In particular, what was the procedure for enforcing the decision of 24 March 2017 in the applicant’s favour? Did its non-enforcement undermine the effectiveness of the remedy?

The applicant complained about lengthy non-enforcement of the domestic court’s judgment given in his favour.

He complained about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 24   March 2011 in his favour.

A judgment was rendered in his favour which became final in December 1999. The judgment was not enforced due to lack of funds from the State budget.

The applicant’s complaints, relating to the non-enforcement of a final judgment rendered in his favour, were communicated to the Government on 19   September 2013.

The Court of Cassation consequently found in favour of the sailors' social security fund and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal, where the proceedings are pending.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non ‑ enforcement of a final judgment in his favour.

Admissible under Article 4: The respondent Government submitted that the applicant had lost her “victim” status on account of the judicial decisions in her favour and the regularisation of her administrative

The court of first instance and the court of appeal ruled in the applicant’s favour, and the court of appeal held, in particular, that the statutory time-limit for imposing disciplinary sanctions on the

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the first instance court and ruled in favour of the pension authority.

Moreover, after the re-opening of the proceedings, he obtained a new final judgment in his favour.

    Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as regards the non-enforcement   of the domestic courts’ judgments adopted in the applicant’s favour (see Ryaska v.

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 thereto, about the non-enforcement of a judgment rendered in her favour against a socially/State-owned

Comparant assisté de Me Betty FAGOT-BIDOU, avocat PARTIES INTERVENANTES Madame Suzanna Z... ... non comparante La D.D.V.S.

né le 11 Août 1978 ... 47000 AGEN Comparant assisté de Me Betty FAGOT-BIDOU, avocat PARTIES INTERVENANTES Madame Suzanna Z... ... 47200 MARMANDE non comparante La D.D.V.S.

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, TROISIEME CHAMBRE CIVILE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par Mme Fanotte X..., demeurant chez M. et Mme Félix X..., avenue F.

l'occupation, sans autorisation, par un local de restauration démontable à l'enseigne du restaurant " Mezza Rena ", une terrasse et un stockage sur sable, pour une emprise de 168 m², de la plage de Favone

A B, représenté par Me Fagot, demande au tribunal : 1°) d'annuler la décision implicite du 24 juillet 2023 par laquelle le service départemental d'incendie et de secours (SDIS) du Nord a rejeté son

On 5 April 2006 the Prison Disciplinary Board found the applicant guilty of making propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to twelve days' solitary confinement.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of a final and binding judgment in his favour.