1 to the Convention, the applicant complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decision given in his favour. 7.

The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 8, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in their favour against the Republika Srpska by

On 29 March 2007 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

  On 7 December 2006 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [2] of the Convention   A hearing took place

The judgments rendered in the applicants’ favour remained unenforced to the present date. B.

    The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.

On 11 July 2002 the Tirana District Court ruled in the applicant's favour and ordered the ORIP to register his plots of land.

THE LAW The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the

    The case concerns the applicant’s complaint, under Article 6 of the   Convention, that a judgment in his favour could not become final in the   absence of relevant legislation,

table below) domestic courts and labour disputes commission delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to benefit from certain actions in their favour

Lda lodged a defence to the enforcement proceedings on 6 December 1982 and on 19 June 1986 the court of first instance found in its favour.

The Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the debt settlement had been an attractive alternative to declaring the judge’s husband bankrupt and not one that could be viewed as a favour

    On 2 March 2010 the Commercial Court ruled in favour of the applicant company and, further, ordered the debtor to pay it 650,000 Serbian Dinars for legal costs. 4.

    The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in its favour. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.

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

On 5 October 2001 a first-instance court ruled in favour of the applicant, a party to a civil dispute.

The court also established a detailed visiting schedule in favour of the applicant. 5 .     On 22   November 2010 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the parties.

Bas. presented B.’s will in her favour and M. claimed to be the widow of the deceased and his heir-at-law.

    The application concerns alleged non-execution of the final judgments in favour of the applicants. 2.