Application no. 57511/14 Kostas DIMITRIOU against Cyprus lodged on 9 August 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a Supreme Court judgment given in the applicant’s favour

concerns the conviction of the applicants for membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation under Articles   220 §   6 and 314 of the Criminal Code and for disseminating propaganda in favour

#Politica agricola comune - Misure speciali di aiuto per i piselli, le favette e i lupini dolci.#Causa C-28/91.

ACCORD D'ENTREPRISE PORTANT SUR LA DUREE, L'AMENAGEMENT DU TEMPS DE TRAVAIL ET POLITIQUE DES REMUNERATIONS DE LA SOCIETE FAVOLS SANTE

    The applicants had final decisions in their favour against private parties rendered by national courts, on various dates, to be enforced.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour. THE LAW 17.

    The decisions given in the applicants' favour have not been executed. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 11.

ACCORD DE SUBSTITUTION ET D'ADAPTATION PORTANT SUR LES CONDITIONS D'INTEGRATION AU SEIN DE LA SOCIETE FAVOLS SANTE DU PERSONNEL TRANSFERE DE L'ENTREPRISE BIOMEGA HYGIENE

    By a final judgment of 23 November 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry to provide him with a two-roomed apartment. 9.

13315 19/11/2019 1 350 € [J] 13324 20/12/2019 660 € Drouville 13333 20/02/2020 1 995 € Favrot 13334 25/02/2020 858 € Favrot 13337 13/03/2020

During the applicant’s relationship with JS, he arranged for a company to buy property and, later, for the company shares to be held in the applicant’s favour.

The judgments and decisions in the applicants’ favour were taken on various dates between March 2012 and February 2020.

against Italy both lodged on 17 February 2017 communicated on 18 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the non-enforcement of a final judgment adopted in the applicants’ favour

“the Government”) of the application which concerns the applicants’ inability to peacefully enjoy their property as a result of the failure of the authorities to enforce the final judgment in their favour

They acknowledged “the lengthy enforcement” of the Town Court’s judgments of 1 and 3 October 2003, 14 April 2004 and 30 March 2006 (“the four judgments”) in the applicant’s favour.

On 22 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a final   judgment in the applicant’s favour.

In the cases of Ms   Tonkonogova and Mr Minyazov the healthcare authorities sought the adjournment of the enforcement of the judgments in favour of the applicants.

All the judgments in the applicants’ favour thus became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the table below. 9.

All the other judgments, including the second judgment in favour of V. Kashcheyev delivered on 14 July 2006, were not enforced. 9.