CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
2ème Chambre
6347ac0f29ffd2adfff4f26a
11 octobre 2022
Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à la SELARL CABINET ERICK ZENOU AVOCATS ET ASSOCIES la SELARL SELARL OPEX AVOCATS SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET
Page 39 sur 606
6347ac1029ffd2adfff4f26c
[X] [T] exerçant sous l'enseigne «TP [T]», Siret 38330754300025 de nationalité Française [Adresse 7] [Localité 12] Représenté par Me Laurent FAVET de la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET, avocat au barreau
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1124JUD002362005
24 novembre 2016
Each time the courts found in the applicant company’s favour.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0731JUD003398602
31 juillet 2007
Judgments in the applicant's favour between 1999 and 2001 6.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1221JUD001713304
21 décembre 2006
The Government maintained that the right of the applicant to have a judgment in her favour enforced has been never questioned.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0925JUD003068211
25 septembre 2018
3713) with disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and, under Article 215 of the Criminal Code, praising a crime or a criminal.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1117JUD002465703
17 novembre 2005
On 26 April 2002 the applicant requested the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in her favour. 10.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1009JUD003599403
9 octobre 2007
Therefore, since the judgment in the applicant's favour has not been enforced to date, the six-month rule cannot be applied in respect of this application.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0619JUD001998102
19 juin 2007
The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 17.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1210JUD000843706
10 décembre 2009
The applicants complained that the judgments given in their favour remain unenforced.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0310JUD005882108
10 mars 2020
Judgment of 26 July 2011 in the second applicant’s favour (application no. 18360/13) 13 .
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0405JUD000562309
5 avril 2016
The applicants complained about the quashing by way of the supervisory review procedure in force between 2008 and 2012 of domestic judgments delivered in their favour and deemed final and
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1008JUD002276412
8 octobre 2019
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 February 2004 in her favour.
Contentieux Général
69db478acdc6046d47f57d8f
7 janvier 2025
Demanderesse au principal, défenderesse reconventionnelle, comparant par Maître Benoît FAVOT, substituant Maître Richard GARUTTI, du CABINET NEGOTIUM AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de PARIS, y demeurant [Adresse
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1106JUD000743505
6 novembre 2008
favour remained unenforced (see Romashov v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1108JUD004184204
8 novembre 2007
The Court observes that on 28 April 2003 and 19 February 2004 the applicant obtained two judgments in his favour against the State.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0405JUD002009803
5 avril 2007
The Government argued that the Council lacked necessary funds for execution of the judgments in the applicants' favour.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0207JUD002043004
7 février 2008
1 ON ACCOUNT OF QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR. 15.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1117JUD002465403
On 4 August 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded RUR 2,158.10 in the applicant’s favour.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1129JUD001885803
29 novembre 2005
The applicants complained of the failure of the State authorities to execute the judgments given in their favour.