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

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

alleges that as a result of the above proceedings he was unlawfully deprived of his possessions, namely his title to the flat no. 8, which had been earlier confirmed by a final judicial decision in his favour

  1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of the domestic judgment delivered in his favour.

States share a presumed responsibility with regard to climate change and that the uncertainty as to the “fair share” of this contribution between the member States can only operate in the applicants’ favour

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

proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Fairness of conviction of membership of the Fetullahist terrorist organisation mainly on the basis of purported use of encrypted messaging application: relinquishment in favour

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision in favour of her father has not been enforced, and

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

also complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention about the breach of the principle of legal certainty in that the Supreme Court set aside binding decisions of lower courts in her favour

In 1994 the domestic courts found in favour of the pensioners. The applicants instituted proceedings in 1996 expecting that the previously established case-law would apply to their cases too.

According to the applicant, although the overpayment in question had been established by final court decisions in his favour, a tax authority refused to reimburse it.

After an initial judgment in favour of the applicant company, Artmet S.A. , its lawyer informed the Court of Appeal of his absence following surgery and asked for an adjournment, annexing a copy of the

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

Consequently, the judicial decisions in favour of the applicant company were overturned. At the close of new proceedings, the applicant company’s application was finally dismissed.

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

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

On 14 June and 4 September 2006 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed two indictments with the Diyarbakır Assize Court charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in her favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

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