COMPLAINTS   The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in his favour.

Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2017, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement

Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 July 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr

The applicant also complained about the quashing by way of supervisory review of a final domestic judgment in his favour.

De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2007, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of

The applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the failure of the State to enforce a judgment debt in his favour against a non-State party.

COMPLAINTS The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour.

  1 to the Convention about the quashing by way of supervisory review of a final domestic judgment in her favour.

Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr

COMPLAINTS   The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour.

  1 thereto about the non-enforcement of the judgment of in his favour, and his son maintained the complaint.

The new judgment was in favour of the applicants in so far as their right to social benefits was restored.

On 13 November 2002 the Płock Regional Court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour. On 24 September 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal. C.

    All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the first ‑ instance and appeal courts found in their favour.

    First judgment in the applicant’s favour and its subsequent quashing The applicant is a military pensioner.

    The Government argued that the supervisory review proceedings resulting in the quashing of the judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour were lawful. 17.

non-enforcement of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   3.

Therefore, they requested the Court to strike out the case as the final decision in the applicant’s favour had been enforced.

The Government submitted that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced within reasonable time.

De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on