On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court against the applicant and two other persons, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in her favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

    The Court observes that on 13 May 2002 and 15 August 2003 the applicant obtained two judgments in his favour which he submitted to court bailiffs for enforcement.

  15021/02), concerning non-enforcement of a judgment debt in his favour.

    Complaints about the length of the enforcement of a judgment given in the applicant's favour 11.

    The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment in his favour.

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

The final judgments in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced until the present day. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.

That authorisation was regularly renewed, by a prefectoral decision in favour of the applicant and his wife, until 31 December 1992.

The Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that the regional court had extended the time-limits for appeal and had subsequently quashed the final judgment in the applicants’ favour.

    The applicant reiterated that the State was responsible for the delay in the enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. 22.

    The case concerns the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to enforce a final judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour against a private individual.

  87 he sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulted from the non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour, for pecuniary damage in the amount of taxes on real estate and for costs

    THE LENGTHY NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANT’S FAVOUR 13.

6 of the Convention that he had not been notified of the cassation proceedings initiated by the defendant and could therefore not present his arguments; as a result, the judgments delivered in his favour

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 December 2000 given in her favour.

  1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour to the Government.

  1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour to the Government.

    On 8 May 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment given in the applicant's favour. 7.