On 27   February   2004 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 100,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 6,333 euros

    The Government observed that there was no omission by the State authorities and the judgment of 15 February 2003 given in the applicant's favour was enforced in full. 18.

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.

    Judgments in the applicant’s favour 5.

  1 concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). 9.

/02532 - N° Portalis DBVM-V-B7E-KQOU N° Minute : C2 Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à : la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

Despite attempts by the applicant to obtain the enforcement of the final judgment in his favour, it has not been enforced to date. COMPLAINTS 1.

Сальска ) awarded 3,730.64 Russian roubles (RUR) in the first applicant’s favour. This judgment entered into force on 16 June 2001.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 that the final judicial decision in his favour was not enforced and under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in that

In return, the applicant declared that no claim or credit would remain in favour of him when the total amount was paid to him or his representative.

In December 1987 the headmaster instituted a fixed monthly allowance in favour of the director of the CNEA and its general secretary.

On 27 February 1997 the Šabac Municipal Court ruled in favour of L.J. That decision was upheld by the Šabac District Court on 29 September 1997.

On 24 April 2003 and 28 February 2005 the applicant repeatedly requested the Enforcement Department to take measures to enforce the final judgment in his favour.

applicant complained invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 7   August   1998 and 19   December   2002 given in her favour

On 27 January 2006 the Ministry executed the judgment ruled in favour of the applicant. He was paid 221,49 new Turkish liras (approximately EUR   137).

On 4   December 2002 the Centru District Court ordered the transfer of a building belonging to the Company to another company (“CFM”), owned by the State, in order to enforce a court order in favour

Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the refusal of the tax authorities and the Supreme Administrative Court (“SAC”) to refund overpaid tax to the applicant company despite several final judgments in its favour

  1 (a)     Applicability – An individual should be entitled to rely on the validity of a final administrative decision in his or her favour, and on the implementing measures already taken

On 26 September 2001 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants.