In 1999 the Parole Board ruled in favour of his parole. This opinion was based on a report by several experts, who referred to five previous reports drawn up by nine psychiatrists.

A B d'évacuer sans délai l'emplacement qu'il occupe sans autorisation sur la plage de Favone à Sari-Solenzara et de retirer les ouvrages qu'il y a installés, sous astreinte de 1 500 euros par jour de retard

COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure to enforce the final judgment in her favour.

  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

contentieuse antérieure : La SAS Contramurata a demandé au juge des référés du tribunal administratif de Bastia d’ordonner la désignation d’un expert géomètre aux fins de déterminer, sur la plage de Favone

The applicant complained under Articles 6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court decision in his favour, and about the lack of an

COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce the final decision rendered in their 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

Following a partial decision and three remittals of the case, on 27 June 2006 the Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud) in Valjevo relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the District Court ( Okružni sud ) in

  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

    In its observations on the merits, the Government submitted that the judgment given in the applicant’s favour had been executed in full.

    On the pension authority’s request, in 2008 the district and town courts quashed their judgments previously delivered in the applicants’ favour due to discovery of new circumstances.

The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

  1 thereto about the quashing of the judgment in his favour. THE LAW The Court observes that the applicant died after having lodged his application under Article 34 of the Convention.

The Constitutional Court did not inform the applicant of the bank’s constitutional appeal or that the judgment in his favour had been quashed. 5 .

    The applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour.

    The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, according to which different State authorities were ordered to pay them lump sums.

The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance.

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour.

    Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment given in her favour.