On the foregoing grounds ... the court has decided to award [damages] against the Ministry of Finance in favour of [Mr] Shatunov...” 19.

However, this factor was outweighed by several factors militating in the applicant’s favour.

    On 23 July 2007 the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer to pay: i.

Under that provision, “[a]nyone who engages in propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of between one and five years”. 50.

The court also accepted the applicant’s submission that in assessing the “reasonableness” of his detention it should take into account, in his favour, the fact that detention had been especially difficult

As noted above, the Government disputed that the Supreme Court had adjudicated in the applicant's favour in its decision of 20 February 2006.

This entitlement was itself constituted as a separate landed servitude (easement, stvarni realni teret ) tied to plots B and C and established in favour of the applicant as the current owner of plot A,

be exterminated ( Gėjai jūs supisti, jus naikinti nx. )”, “... faggots... such should be hit into the head (...

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF LENGTHY NON-ENFORCEMENT OF COURT AWARDS IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR 16.

    The applicant complained that the explanation of the final judgment in his favour had resulted in a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:

    The judgments in favour of the applicants have not been executed to date. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 11.

  1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour delivered on 12   July 1991 and 8 November 2004. THE LAW 26.

He also considered that the judgments in his favour had not been fully enforced. 49.

Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à la SELARL DENIAU AVOCATS GRENOBLE la SCP VANDENBUSSCHE BENHAMOU & ASSOCIES Me ROBICHON Me FAVET

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT’S FAVOUR 11.

    The Government submitted that since the award made on 26 June 2002 in the applicant’s favour had been paid on 18 March 2004 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation

  1 (protection of property), she complains of the delay in enforcing final rulings in her favour concerning the recovery of possession of a plot of land.

    The Court notes that the judgment in favour of the applicant was enforced 22 months after it had been adopted. The debtor in this case was a State body.

    The applicant complained of the failure of the State authorities to execute the judgment of 26   April 2000 given in his favour.