The Court observes that on 5 November 2001 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour which became enforceable ten days later.

The final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour have not yet been enforced.

An order imposing a charge on that item ( pljenidbeni popis ) had been issued in favour of the applicant in January 2008.

    The applicant complained, in particular, of the quashing of a final judgment in her favour on account of newly discovered circumstances. 4.

Russia (no. 10277/05) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the quashing of final judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review.

However, no steps had been taken to enforce the commission's decisions in the applicants' favour.

The judgments in the applicants’ favour became binding, but the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the judgments in due time.

    On 6 May 2011 the Court communicated to the respondent Government the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. 10.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive delay in the enforcement of a final judgment in her favour. 4.

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

the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by State authorities in their favour

  1 could be found separately from Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants’ favour, because the finding of a violation of the

On 21 May 2001, the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay the pension due and to resume the execution of the contract.

    The applicant complained about a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of final judgment in his favour.

    A representative of the Fund replied in writing on 31 July 2012 that the body would pay the sum awarded in the final judgment in the applicant company’s favour once the latter had complied

The easement is in favour of a housing cooperative which acquired the flats from the construction cooperative in 1987.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard.

DBVM-V-B7G-LJDD C8 Minute : Copie exécutoire délivrée le : la SELARL CABINET FERRARO la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

N° RG 21/03778 - N° Portalis DBVM-V-B7F-LARR N° Minute : C1 Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET la