On 12 May 2005 the applicants informed the Court that all the judgments in their favour had been enforced on 29 April 2005. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 18.

    The applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour.

    The Government averred that the judgment in the applicant's favour had been timely enforced. A.     Admissibility 19.

On 23   June 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice found a violation of the applicant’s rights as a result of the quashing of the final judgment in his favour.

Menuiserie GONON-POGNANT, dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 12] représentée par Maître Laurent FAVET de la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET, avocats au barreau de GRENOBLE S.A.R.L.

The decisions taken in the applicants' favour have not yet been enforced. 2.

    The Court observes that the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 in favour of S.

TRIBUNAL JUDICIAIRE DE PARIS [1] [1] 3 Expéditions exécutoires - Me OUKHELIFA - Me FAVOT - Me CHAN délivrées le : + 1 copie dossier ■ 5ème chambre 2ème section N° RG 19/09674 N° Portalis

    In such circumstances, while it is true that the judgements in the applicants’ favour were enforced, the Court finds that the measures taken in the applicants’ favour were nevertheless insufficient

Despite the expert reports submitted in favour of the applicant during those proceedings, the Diyarbakır Cadastre Court dismissed the applicant’s action but ruled that the applicant should instead bring

by law Potential participation in deliberations of “reserve justices” not in three-judge formation assigned to determine applicant’s appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court: relinquishment in favour

Tunisian national on board the ship returning him to his country of origin following a refusal-of-entry order issued at the Italian maritime border, his residence permit having expired: relinquishment in favour

On 23 March 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. On the same day he was remanded in custody.

The application concerns the conviction of the applicant for membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code, for disseminating propaganda in favour

They both complained about the non-enforcement of judgments in their favour, resulting in a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article   1 of Protocol No.

Bulgaria - 22627/03 Judgment 2.7.2009 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Form of execution of judgment in the applicant’s favour

On 5 October 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights complaining about the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in his favour and lack of an effective remedy.

By two letters of 2 July 2009 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wished to withdraw their respective applications, since the judgments in their favour had been fully

The judgment in the applicant's favour was not appealed against, became final and the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings. The judgment remains unenforced.