On 6 July 2010 the Government informed the Court that the final judgments in favour of the applicants had been enforced between December 2007 and February 2008.

COMPLAINT/COMPLAINTS The applicant essentially complains about the failure by the national authorities to enforce a final judgment in her favour.

of Mr Kucherenko and of 16   September 2009 in favour of Ms Popova, respectively.

By a judgment of 2 September 2002 the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Department to calculate and pay her a pension.

On 12 December 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Ms Rujavniţa and awarded her compensation in the sum of MDL 8,976 (EUR 519).

The judgment in the applicant’s favour has not been fully enforced. B.

Accordingly, the judgments in the applicant’s favour should be regarded as issued against a private company.

Meanwhile, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced (see paragraph 5). 3.     Proceedings following the communication of the case 8.

The non-enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour On 4 July 1997 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk (“the District Court”) fined the applicant with UAH 350 for corruption in the course

Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant

; The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non ‑ enforcement of a final judgment in his favour.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour.

In that case the Court found a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the failure to enforce the final judgment of 26 June 2002 in the applicant’s favour

Seeing that in essence the complaint made by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour is the same as the one under

On 30 August 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed the final judgment in favour of the applicants and dismissed their action.

COMPLAINT   The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour.

ses demandes, - dit que le paiement de la somme de 34 753,82 euros effectué par la société Orthopédie [Q] directement à la société Jerenove35 n'est pas libérateur à l'égard de la société BNP Paribas fator

De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2008, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of

De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 January 2007, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement