According to the information provided by the applicant, the final judgment in his favour remains unenforced. COMPLAINTS 6.

Holding that the applicant had participated in a demonstration organised upon the call of the PKK and chanted slogans in favour of that organisation, the first-instance court sentenced the applicant to

On 23 January 2003 the Dniprodzerzhynsk Local Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be enforced because of the debtor’s lack of funds.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the changes in the protocols had in effect reduced the number of votes recorded in her favour and had increased those cast in favour of the candidate immediately after

“Are you in favour of publishing sexual media content for underaged children without any restriction, capable of influencing their development?”

In 2001 the Supreme Court granted an application for supervisory review of the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the District Court, which again found in the applicant’s favour.

In their observations, the Government submitted a copy of a payment order in favour of the applicant for the amount indicated in the judgment of 9 February 2005.

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

On 27   March   2001, the Novogrodovsky City Court found in favour of the applicant. However, the decision was executed only in part.

    The Court notes that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced on 20   August 2010.

2003 and 2008, as well as the delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour delivered in 2006. 4.

[Adresse 3] [Adresse 17] représentée par Me Laurent FAVET de la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET, avocat au barreau de GRENOBLE S.A.

    The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour.

    On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the DHKP/C (Revolutionary

Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) – Article 4 – Setting of prudential requirements – Article 16 – Risk linked to irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) given in favour

  The authorisation was regularly renewed, by decision of the Prefect, in favour of the applicant and his wife, until 31 December 1992.

On 2 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the final judgment in favour of the applicant.

The court also prolonged the term for accepting the inheritance of the applicant's grandfather's house in favour of the applicant's father.

They both submitted that the book was a fictional novel inspired by real events and that it did not contain any propaganda in favour of the PKK.