In this connection they pointed out that the outstanding judgment of 22 September 2006 included an obligation in favour of a third party, and not the applicant. 10.

    The applicants complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

Following that, the civil proceedings were reopened and a judgment of February 2005 found in favour of the Ministry of Finance.

On 11 April 2001 the Ciocana District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him compensation.

  The bailiffs also fined the Town Administration for its failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour.

    The judgments in favour of Ms Glova and Ms Bregin remain unenforced in part (UAH 275 [3] and UAH 855 [4] respectively). II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 8.

Tumanyan, a lawyer practising in Vanadzor; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the quashing of a final judgment in the applicants’ favour to the Armenian Government (“the Government

    The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgments in her favour of 18   December   1997, 4 April 2001 (in the case no

    The Government argued that the applicant lost her victim’s status after the execution of the court judgment in her favour. 23.

Those also weighed in favour of finding a positive obligation to grant family reunification.

In 1995 the civil courts ruled in favour of the applicant and she received the entire amount of salary arrears awarded to her. 8 .

  1, the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The relevant provisions read as follows: Article   6 “1.

    The Court observes that on 28 November 2002 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour against the local Ministry of Labour.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

    On 13 June 2000 the Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Republic of Karelia ( Петрозаводский городской суд Республики Карелия ) ruled in the applicant's favour.

    The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to honour the final domestic judgment in favour of her deceased husband. 4.     In line with the pilot judgment Burdov v.

    The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.