Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4308
10 juin 2004
10 juin 2004
In the civil proceedings, the court ruled partially in the applicant’s favour and awarded him compensation.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-242116
29 janvier 2025
29 janvier 2025
The first- and second- instance courts ruled in favour of the applicant and dismissed the State’s civil action.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-237362
13 septembre 2024
13 septembre 2024
domestic courts, in breach of the Constitutional Court and High Court of Cassation and Justice decisions on this matter and of the principle of legal certainty by infringing the final decision issued in favour
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68147-68615
19 octobre 2000
19 octobre 2000
Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention that they do not have an effective remedy, because that they cannot enforce the court decisions in their favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0312DEC006191209
12 mars 2013
12 mars 2013
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol no.1 that despite the judgment given in his favour, the Municipality had not paid the due amount.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0404DEC004417316
4 avril 2024
4 avril 2024
The Government submitted that on 24 November 2022 the Constitutional Court had re-opened the proceedings with a view to correcting the error made in the applicant’s case and ruled in favour of the applicant
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-178270
2 octobre 2017
2 octobre 2017
The court ruled in his favour reiterating in the reasoning part its conclusion regarding the land’s value as appraised in the first lawsuit.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0105DEC000746706
5 janvier 2010
5 janvier 2010
In that case the Court found a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the failure to enforce the final judgment of 26 June 2002 in the applicant’s favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0203DEC007368512
3 février 2015
3 février 2015
COMPLAINT The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187173
26 septembre 2018
26 septembre 2018
The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the partial execution of the judgment in his favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0602DEC004370014
2 juin 2015
2 juin 2015
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of judgments rendered in her favour against a socially-owned company.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0316DEC000898707
16 mars 2010
16 mars 2010
The applicant complained under Articles 1, 4 § 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 December 2004 given in her favour against
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0512DEC001629907
12 mai 2009
12 mai 2009
As disclosed by the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, the judgment debt was fully discharged in the applicant’s favour on 20 December 2007.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0917DEC002118706
17 septembre 2013
17 septembre 2013
1 about the non-enforcement and the subsequent quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-5685
28 juin 2001
28 juin 2001
.) - 50755/99 Decision 28.6.2001 [Section IV] Article 34 Victim Decision in applicant's favour following rejection at first instance of request for legal aid in proceedings concerning pension rights: inadmissible
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1117DEC003069211
17 novembre 2015
17 novembre 2015
The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0124DEC000341506
24 janvier 2008
24 janvier 2008
COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement by the State of the final judgment in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-239146
19 décembre 2024
19 décembre 2024
19 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of court proceedings in connection with the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 March 2013 in the applicants’ favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0306DEC001335007
6 mars 2012
6 mars 2012
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the failure of the respondent Party to enforce a final judgment rendered in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0222DEC004072106
22 février 2011
22 février 2011
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic courts to enforce a final domestic judgment rendered in her favour, as well as of the absence of an effective
Source officiellePage 116 sur 606