The Court notes that the judgment given in the applicant's favour remained unenforced for almost fifty months. 23.

    The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 10.

    The applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.

  1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour to the Government.

  He also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the failure of the domestic authorities to enforce the final judgment in his favour was due to his Serbian origin and that, therefore,

    The Court observes that on 5 April 2001 the applicant obtained a judgment in her favour by which she was to receive a certain sum of money from the Arkhangelsk Regional Administration.

On 3 March 1997 the Shakhty City Court ( Шахтинский городской суд ) held in the applicant’s favour. It ordered payment of the money due and a penalty in respect of the delay.

A number of judgments were delivered in his favour which in one case, took over two years and two months to enforce.

  He complains about his pre-trial detention and the failure to execute the judgments in his favour, relying on Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 1 of Protocol   No.

The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

The judgments in the applicants’ favour were subsequently enforced.

On 30 December 2008 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant, and by 3 February 2009 this judgment became final. C.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the final judgment in her favour had been quashed by way of supervisory review.

Pending the below proceedings, on 13 April 2010 the Commissioner of Land (hereinafter “the Commissioner”) extended the lease in favour of the third party until 31 January 2020, at a rent of approximately

    The applicant claimed that the quashing of a final and binding judgment in his favour caused him distress and frustration.

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

She complained that the administration had not complied with the Kayseri Administrative Court’s decision of 15 April 2004 given in her favour. 18.

applicants complained about a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances of binding and enforceable judgment in their favour

    Proceedings concerning the approval of a planning and building permit in favour of the applicant company On 7 June 1996 the applicant company entered into a building agreement ( kontratë