1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about delays in enforcement of the court awards in his favour.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

A private bailiff was hired to enforce both judgments in the applicants’ favour, but then withdrew from the proceedings, having received no assistance from the police.

In their observations of 16 June 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced by 1 December 2004.

M.H. had simply brought legal proceedings, as he was entitled to do, following a judgment in his favour which entitled him to claim additional severance pay.

B... occupent sans autorisation le domaine public maritime par l’installation, constatée le même jour, sur la plage de Favone, située sur le territoire de la commune de Sari-Solenzara, d’une structure

Apparently, the court judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.

    On 5 June 2008 the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction ruled in the applicant’s favour and ordered the defendant party to pay the court fees of 24,551 Turkish liras in addition to

    The applicants submitted that the final judgment in their favour had been enforced only after an unreasonable delay.

  1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR 15.

The payments made in the applicants’ favour included the reimbursement of the costs sustained for the enforcement procedure. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.

. # Ricorso di annullamento - Regolamento (CEE) del Consiglio 30 giugno 1992, n. 1765, che istituisce un regime di sostegno a favore dei coltivatori di taluni seminativi - Obbligo di rispettare una data

The applicant also complained about the quashing of a final judgment in his favour by the Supreme Court of Justice on 5 February 2003.

    The applicants complained, inter alia, of the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment in their favour by way of supervisory review procedure. 4.

    The applicant complained about a violation of his rights guaranteed under the above Articles as a result of the failure to enforce the final court judgment in his favour. 29 .

    The Government submitted that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had ended in the applicant’s favour by the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR 24.

    Court judgments in the applicants' favour 8.

By separate judgments of 30 August 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region found in the applicants’ favour.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR 24.