zones ; - les objectifs posés par le rapport de présentation ne sont pas conformes aux orientations du PADD relatives à la préservation de la vocation agricole des espaces de production et à la favorisation

Judgments in the applicant’s favour against the ZAO 6.

    The applicants complained of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour.

    On 22 July 1998 the Centru District Court found in favour of the third party and ordered the eviction of the applicant from her apartment.

The public prosecutor noted that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK in the village coffee house that he frequented and that he had waved a piece of cloth symbolising the PKK

    The Government accepted that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour had taken place and submitted that at the relevant time there had been systematic delays

It also proposed to the debtor that it enforce the judgment given in the applicant’s favour voluntarily.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of her Convention rights in that a final judgment in her favour had not been enforced. 4.

Romania (nos. 3198/04, 12040/06, 15534/06 and 49645/07) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour.

defendants (including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service) from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour

    The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to enforce the judgment of 11 August 2004 in his favour.

    At the time of the latest communication with the parties in June 2011, the judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced. THE LAW I.

January 2017 the complaints raised under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concerning the inability of the applicant to enforce a judgment rendered in her favour

of each of the applicant companies, as well as a violation of the same provision on account of the quashing of the final judgment in favour of Tudor-Auto S.R.L., that there had been a violation of Article

    The applicant complains about the quashing on 17   June 2010 of the final judgment delivered in her favour on 3   April 2008.

Additionally, he complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the final judgment given in his favour breached his rights under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgments of 1 March 2001 and 18 June 2003 in her favour had been quashed by

    The Court notes that the final court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced to the present date. 24.