The Government maintained that the Bailiffs’ Service had performed all necessary actions in order to enforce the judgment of 6 July 2001 in the applicant’s favour.

Par mémoire enregistré le 26 janvier 2023, la SARL IXANS, représentée par Me Favet (SELARL cabinet Laurent Favet), conclut au rejet des conclusions d'appel provoqué présentées par l'OPH DAH et demande

  1 (protection of property) on account of the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour concerning a plot of land.

Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the annulment of a court judgment in his favour. THE LAW 1.

She also complained under the same Article about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour.

  1 (protection of property), he complained of not being able to recover his money deposited in a private bank as a result of the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour.

    The Court observes that on 20 January 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment in her favour by which she was to be provided with a flat.

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

Neither L.Sh. nor his legal guardian applied for the enforcement of the judgments in L.Sh.’s favour. At no time were the enforcement proceedings opened. On an unspecified date N.Sh. died.

In a judgment of 13 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court’s judgment and rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, thus deciding the case in favour of the applicant and Ms P.P.

The applicant 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 her favour

applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgment rendered in her favour

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had no effective remedy under domestic law whereby he could challenge the non-enforcement of a court decision given in his favour

On 3 March 1997 Shakhty City Court ( Шахтинский городской суд ) found in Mr Burdov’s favour and awarded him 23,786,567 Russian roubles (RUR) of the outstanding compensation and an equal sum in the form

It also attached less importance to the lack of evidence of a common European approach to the matter than to the clear and uncontested evidence of a continuing international trend in favour not only of

  ***   On 13 June 2006 the Chamber of the Court dealing with the cases relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [2] of the Convention. [3]     ***

of compensation awarded to him by the domestic court was not sufficient and did not cover the non-pecuniary damage sustained by him as a result of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour

On 24   August 2004 the Chamber of the Court dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [2] of the Convention.

  Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant lodged a request for review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice by which the final court decisions in his favour had been