19/2017) organising a self-determination referendum, section   4 of which law provided that the referendum would be binding: in the event of a result in favour, it would be followed by a declaration

Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgments in their favour

    The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article   1 of Protocol No.

She also complains about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in her favour.

B, représenté par Me Favet (SELARL Cabinet Laurent Favet), demande à la cour : 1°) d'annuler ce jugement du tribunal administratif de Grenoble du 1er mars 2022 ; 2°) de condamner la commune d'Oz-en-Oisans

introduction of the new law, various individuals in the applicants’ position had successfully challenged the calculation used by the INPS and that there had therefore been a majority interpretation in favour

On 19 December 2014 the Court of First Instance ( Osnovni sud ) in Kotor ruled in favour of the State.

  1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgment rendered in her favour.

had endured, but, on examining the competing interests of the need to bring to justice violent criminals and the need to protect the sanctity of the family’s home, found that the scales came down in favour

On 9 July 1999 the Shakhty Town Court ruled in favour of the applicant. The national court awarded compensation and fixed further monthly payments which were to be subsequently adjusted.

By a partial judgment of 29 April 1985 the Warsaw District Court ruled in favour of the applicant.

The applicants complained, among other matters, about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour imposing various obligations in kind on domestic authorities and the lack of the effective

The applicant complained about the failure by the national authorities to enforce the said final court decision in her favour.

    The judgments in favour of all the applicants were eventually enforced between September 2004 and April 2005.

    The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible. 11.

    On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.

    On 19 April 2004 the Kutina Municipal Court opened enforcement proceedings against the State on the basis of the final and enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour. 20.

the constituency; (ii)     the local executive and police authorities, as well as heads of educational, medical and other state-funded institutions, interfered in the election process in favour

According to the applicant, the three final judgments in her favour remained entirely unenforced.