The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment rendered in his favour.

for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments and to grant redress to all victims in pending cases of this kind Facts – The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of judgments in his favour

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final domestic decision rendered in her favour against

The applicants' complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour were communicated to the Government

the applicable legal provisions, that the proceedings had been excessively lengthy and that the domestic courts had breached her right to a fair trial by quashing a final judgment delivered in her favour

Although the Court of First Instance ruled in his favour, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision, relying on Article   30(4)(e) of Law No. 5335, which entered into force on 21 April

The applicant, together with B.M.M., had provided a suretyship ( fideiussione ) in favour of a bank to secure the obligations undertaken by a joint-stock company, O. S.p.A. Following O.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention about the failure of the national authorities to enforce final court decisions in the applicant’s favour

The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this connection

The applicant was seen amongst a group of demonstrators, who had been shouting slogans in favour of the PKK/Kongra-Gel, an armed illegal organisation, and was arrested by the police officers.

The circumstances of the case The applicant complained, among other matters, about delayed enforcement of the judgment in her favour taken by the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow on 20   December

  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final domestic judgment rendered in his favour on

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 his favour.

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.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final judgment rendered in his favour.

  1 to the Convention about the failure to enforce judgments in his favour in good time.

addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complains that the opening of insolvency proceedings effectively deprived him of the possibility of enforcing the judgments in his favour

On 17 June 2015 the court found in favour of the applicants and allowed them to hold their demonstration in front of the entrance.

Having first ruled in her favour, the national courts ultimately decided to dismiss the applicant’s compensation claims brought against the relevant municipal authorities and the investor company.