Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-113708
17 septembre 2012
17 septembre 2012
The relevant practice of the Constitutional Court On 5 February 2009 the Municipal Court in Vranje ruled in favour of certain D.N.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0909DEC002081208
9 septembre 2021
9 septembre 2021
THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention The applicant complained that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0407DEC002254505
7 avril 2009
7 avril 2009
date in 2004 the applicant filed a court action against the bailiff, seeking an order recognising the insufficiency of the measures taken by the bailiff in order to enforce the final judgment in his favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1122DEC006244410
22 novembre 2016
22 novembre 2016
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, about the non-enforcement of the final decision rendered in the favour of the applicant.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0212DEC003291103
12 février 2008
12 février 2008
On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-3932
3 mars 2005
3 mars 2005
The Romanian authorities had been unable to enforce the final decision in the applicants’ favour on account of the principle of a foreign State’s diplomatic immunity on Romanian soil.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1107DEC003175303
7 novembre 2006
7 novembre 2006
On 26 May 2003 the applicant sent letters to the Bailiff and to the Social Welfare Office complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1122DEC003365710
22 novembre 2016
22 novembre 2016
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, about the non-enforcement of the final decision rendered in the favour of the applicant.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0520DEC000050704
20 mai 2008
20 mai 2008
On 30 August 2001, the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay the pension due and to resume the execution of the contract.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-118894
28 mars 2013
28 mars 2013
On 20 December 2005 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation under
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2738797-3004953
26 mai 2009
26 mai 2009
In January 1999, the court ruled in his favour granting him access for research purposes to all documents requested.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-229725
27 novembre 2023
27 novembre 2023
Therefore, they brought individual applications before the Constitutional Court, complaining, inter alia , about the non-enforcement of court decisions in their favour and the alleged inconsistency in
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0301JUD001794713
1 mars 2022
1 mars 2022
The court reheard the case, rejected the time-barred appeal and finally upheld the judgment from 8 October 2010 in the applicant’s favour.
Source officielle2ème chambre section C
65aa28b6a34ad10008581b3c
18 janvier 2024
18 janvier 2024
DBVH-V-B7G-ILKO CS TRIBUNAL DE PROXIMITE DE PERTUIS 16 décembre 2021 RG: [D] C/ Etablissement Public VALLIS HABITAT Grosse délivrée le à Selarl Fagot
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1122DEC005078208
22 novembre 2016
22 novembre 2016
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, about the non-enforcement of the final decision rendered in the favour of the applicant.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1102JUD006133300
2 novembre 2004
2 novembre 2004
On 23 May 1996, 10 December 1996, 27 May 1997 and 23 June 1998, the Yalta City Court granted the claims due to the longstanding non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0401JUD001198903
1 avril 2010
1 avril 2010
The applicant alleged, in particular, that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced. 4.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1015JUD002868606
15 octobre 2013
15 octobre 2013
On 17 June 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her: i.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0510JUD002328705
10 mai 2007
10 mai 2007
The Court, however, notes that the State's outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments in the applicant's favour is not in dispute.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1117JUD002729503
17 novembre 2005
17 novembre 2005
In 2002 – 2004 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in the favour enforced. 9.
Source officiellePage 21 sur 606