The Court then observes that the final judgment in the applicants’ favour has now been enforced (see paragraph 12 above).

  In the meantime the applicant had obtained further judgments in his favour.

    In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full. 12.

    The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints.

    The Government acknowledged that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was not fully enforced.

    Enforcement of the judgments in the applicant company’s favour a.

    Judgments in the applicants’ favour 5.

    On 5   March   2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH   8,906.23 [1] in favour of the first applicant. 8.

    The applicants alleged non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. 4.

    The Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour is not in dispute.

Non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour   In his application and further correspondence, the applicant maintains that the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour indicated

    All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the first ‑ instance and appeal courts found in their favour.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the introduction of Act XXVII of 2018 impeded the execution of the judgment in his favour. THE LAW 15.

    Domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour and their enforcement The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants also argued under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy to complain about the failure to enforce domestic decisions in their favour.

    The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

    The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment in their favour and lack of access to

    The applicant also complained about extension of the time-limit for appeal and subsequent quashing of the final judgment in his favour. 25.

    The applicants complained that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced.