It followed that the Government had introduced legislative amendments shifting the situation in the Government’s favour, decades after the taking of the applicants’ property.

    The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints.

    The applicant complained about the quashing of the judgment in his favour by way of supervisory review and alleged a violation of his property rights. 4.

    Immediately after the delivery of the judgment in its favour the applicant parish instituted enforcement proceedings.

    The case concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on account of his conviction for disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.

    On 30   May 2008 the bailiffs’ service informed the applicant, in response to her complaint about delay in the enforcement of the judgment given in her favour, that the enforcement writ

    The applications, which mainly concern non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour and excessive delays in the enforcement of decisions, were communicated to the

    LENGTH OF THE SECOND SET OF PROCEEDINGS AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR 44.

The Barvinkovo Court rendered a judgment in the applicant’s favour on 17 May 2010 and the findings of the judgment are different from the findings of the judgment of 30 April 2010.

allowed a request by the Prosecutor General lodged under Article   38 §   3 of the Law on Economic Courts, and quashed a final judgment of 1   August 1997 in the applicant company's favour

On 12 November 1997 the Istanbul Administrative Court found in favour of the applicant and decided to annul the administrative decision that had terminated the applicant's employment contract.

  When the payments stopped in 1994 the applicants brought actions before the courts, which found in their favour.

restitution of a building, on account of the diplomatic immunity of the tenant organisation; the lack of independence and impartiality of a tribunal due to an opinion expressed by an inspecting judge in favour

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

On 3 March 1992 the Third Municipal Court ( Treći Opštinski sud ) in Belgrade ruled in favour of the applicant and on 26 March 1993 this judgment was enforced.

    On 2 March 2009 the Izmir Labour Court accepted the case brought by the applicant against his employer and ruled in his favour.

He also complains that the quashing of the final judgment in his favour was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Submitting arguments in favour of his release similar to those submitted in his motion, the applicant argued that by postponing the examination of his motion the Regional Court had violated his rights

Generally speaking, all applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, according to which the socially/State-owned company in question was ordered to pay them their salary arrears.