The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 21   January 2003 in his favour, as upheld on appeal, violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article

  XXVII of 2018 which provided that despite a judgment in their favour, it shall not be lawful for the owner to proceed to request the eviction of the occupier without first availing himself of the

    Complaints concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.

On 2   February 2001 the Lysychansk Court refused to consider the applicant’s complaints since the commission had already allowed his claims and awarded compensation in his favour. 10.

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

The first instance court found in favour of the applicant and awarded the statutory interest in full.

XXVII of 2018 which impeded the execution of the judgment in her favour, as a result of which the applicant considered that she was also suffering a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Following a request from the applicant, the trial judge made a defendant’s costs order in his favour in respect of the second and third trials.

    The Government argued that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in due time.

    The applicant complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of the Bereznivsky Court’s judgment of 11 September 2001 in his favour.

Romania (no. 1193/08) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour.

    The Court also notes that, except for the Constitutional Court’s decisions, all judicial decisions were in favour of the applicant.

  Non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour from 28   May   2002 until 24   April   2003   In their observations, the respondent Government submitted that

  1, the applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of the final domestic decision issued in its favour against company T.

Ukraine (no. 22709/02) The Court found the above violations in these seven cases concerning the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants’ favour.

    The court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour on 25 August 2003, 11 October 2004, 31 May 2004, 1 June 2004 and 21 January 2005 (see paragraph 8 above) became final on an unspecified

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that by failing for more than forty-three months to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities

    The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    On 31 May 2002 the Tbilisi District Court, finding in favour of the applicants, ruled that the Ministry of Defence, the Department   of the State Border Guards, the Ministry of Health