Favrot X..., ; M.

par les rues du Dragon, des Poutrains, Nationale, Avenue Millet, de la Fin de la Guerre, Jean Jaurès, Desaix, de la Latte, du Calvaire, de Gand, rue du Bus / de la rue du Docteur A à la rue du Moulin Fagot

    On 19 June 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR 25.

    LENGTHY NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECISIONS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR 11.

- Trattore "Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor" - Art. 234 CE - Obbligo, per un giudice nazionale, di proporre una questione pregiudiziale - Condizioni - Informazione tariffaria vincolante rilasciata a favore

#Aiuti di Stato – Aiuti concessi dal Belgio a favore di BSCA – Decisione che dichiara gli aiuti in parte compatibili e in parte incompatibili con il mercato interno – Atto giuridicamente vincolante – Periodo

There was no evidence that the judgment in the applicant’s favour could no longer be enforced. It was not quashed or amended.

    The Government submitted that the domestic judgments in the applicant’s favour had been executed in full prior to being quashed and they were not required to reimburse them afterwards.

On various dates the applicants brought proceedings against private parties and obtained final court decisions in their favour.

They acknowledged the excessive length of the enforcement of the final and enforceable judgments in the applicants' favour.

THE LAW The applicant complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in her favour.

By a final judgment of 2 March 2000 the Court of Appeal found in favour of the applicant and awarded him 4,186 Moldovan lei (MDL) (373.43 euros (EUR) at the time).

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the

By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged excessive duration of the enforcement of the domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour.

THE LAW The applicants complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in their favour.

  1 about the delayed enforcement of judgments of domestic courts delivered in their favour.

THE LAW The applicant complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour.

However, the judgment in their favour remained unenforced. 6.     On 2 April 2009 the applicant’s wife died. 7.