De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2007, Having regard to a settlement reached by the parties, Having deliberated

    The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the Republika Srpska by the Banja Luka First

On 17 December 2007 the applicant received MDL   143,236, thus, enforcing the final judgment in his favour.

  1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. THE LAW A.

The final court judgment rendered in creditor’s favour remains unenforced to the present day.

paragraph 2, of the Convention; Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state has taken the measures, in favour

Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Having satisfied itself that the Government of the respondent state has taken, in favour

The judgments in favour of the applicants have not been enforced to date. B.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the authorities had failed to enforce the judgments in their favour. THE LAW A.

    The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour were applied in accordance with the legislation

The judgment in the applicant’s favour was not enforced.

A successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt in his favour (see Shvedov v.   Russia , no.

European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   March 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Mahoney, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş

COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in his favour.

Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant

The applicant’s complaints concerning extension of the time-limits for appeal and subsequent quashing of the final judgments in her favour were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”)

Consequently, the Government considered that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage as a result of the domestic judgments in their favour being quashed. 13.

On 27 June 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a request for the annulment of the judgment in favour of the applicant and for the dismissal of his claims.

The applicants’ complaint concerning delay in the enforcement of judgments in their favour was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who were represented initially by Mr G.

suite du refus opposé par le préfet du Finistère à sa demande de communication d'une copie de documents relatifs à l'association syndicale des propriétaires des terrains ruraux remembrés de Plonévez-du-Faou