present application principally concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the delay in the enforcement of a judgment in his favour

The fact that the applicant’s living conditions were better was insufficient in itself for making a residence order in his favour.

#Responsabilidade extracontratual — Auxílios de Es tado — Regulamento s de isenção por categoria — Programa de auxílios concedido s pelas autoridades checas a favor de certas empresas — Decisão da Comissão

On 13   April   2000 the Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region found in the applicant’s favour, having established that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law.

    The applications, which mainly concern the issues of lengthy failure to enforce domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, were communicated to the Government on various dates. 5

The High Court of Justice gave judgment in their favour on 28 May 2003.

    Judgment in the applicants’ favour 5 .

    In May 2011, following their resumption, the fourth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. F.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour.

    On 7 October 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.

The public prosecutor submitted that the following passages in the speech constituted propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation: “... We want peace in this country.

  The authorisation was regularly renewed, by decision of the Prefect, in favour of the applicant and his wife, until 31 December 1992.

Russia , no. 3447/06, § 26, 18 February 2010) or when an applicant knew, or ought to have known, that the enforcement of the judgments in her favour was no longer possible (see, for instance, Babich and

    Domestic judgment in the applicant’s favour In October 2013 the applicant’s flat was declared unsuitable for living.

They had only made disclosures about the situation after the conviction against them had become final and all other attempts to manipulate the proceedings in their favour had failed.

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

The judgment of 24 March 2004 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.

    By a final judgment of 18 March 2003 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Chişinău Local Council to provide her with an apartment. 9.

A, entrepreneur individuel, exploite sur le territoire de la commune de Conca, sur la plage de Favone, un établissement de restauration sur une superficie d'environ 713 m² servant d'assiette à un local