1, both cited above, the applicant complained that the judgment of 15   September 2004 in his favour had not been enforced. 32.

    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 23.

    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 23.

    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.

    On 19 November 1997 the Leninskiy District Court of Kirov decided the case in his favour.

    On 17 April 2014 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for a residence order in her favour.

On an unspecified date the Adana public prosecutor amended the charges against the applicant and asked the Adana Assize Court to convict him of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section

    The applicant complained of a prolonged non-enforcement of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) award made in his favour and absence of

United Kingdom (relinquishment) - 22854/20   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Extradition to the USA with alleged real risk of life imprisonment without parole: relinquishment in favour

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 and for disseminating propaganda in favour

The application concerns the conviction of the applicants for disseminating propaganda in favour of the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour.

the proceedings concerning an interim injunction ( einstweilige Verfügung ), the Vienna Commercial Court ( Handelsgericht Wien ) and the Vienna Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) decided in favour

respectively communicated on 26 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ complaint about the alleged failure of the State to enforce the final judgments issued in their favour

The judgment in her favour was eventually enforced.

THE LAW The Court observes that the impugned interim decision in favour of the child’ father has never been enforced and that the child continued living with the applicant pending the child-residence proceedings

considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour

#Incumplimiento de Estado - Reglamento (CEE) nº 1408/71 - Artículo 4, apartado 1, letra a) - Reglamento (CEE) nº 1612/68 - Artículo 7, apartado 2 - Prestaciones de los Länder alemanes en favor de invidentes

    On 29 April 2002 the first applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs for their failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. 12.