Court observed that in the context of elections and referenda the State must, in general, not interfere with advertising in favour of a certain manner of voting.

  1 about non ‑ enforcement of the judgment in his favour and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review were concerned.

    The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour, as specified in the Appendix, and about the lack of the effective domestic remedies in

By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.

The decisions in the applicants’ favour became final, but remain unenforced.

    The applicants complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce final court decisions rendered in their favour and of the lack of an effective remedy in that connection.

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

    The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour had violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.

The Court notes at the outset that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was quashed on 27   July 2007, that is two months after the applicant’s death.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that the final judgment in her favour of 4 April 2000, as upheld on 30 May 2000, was not enforced and was subsequently quashed by way of supervisory

    Thus, the Court considers that the State was liable for enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour. 19.

  1 the applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in her favour.

On the dates set out in the annexed table below the national courts, holding in favour of the applicants, ordered the authorities to pay various amounts to the applicants.

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants' favour.

    The applicant complained principally of the delayed enforcement of the domestic decision in his favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    Complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour 18.

that the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK after having listened the applicant’s speech. 12.

    The applicant reiterated that the State was responsible for the delay in the enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. 21.

LTD against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 31 August 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing by way of allegedly abusive revision proceedings of a final judgment in favour