The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of a final decision in her favour. 11.

#State aid – Aviation sector – Measures implemented by Romania in favour of Timișoara Airport – Measures implemented by Timișoara Airport in favour of Wizz Air and airlines using that airport – Decision

ENTRE * La SAS LOCAM - LOCATION AUTOMOBILES MATERIELS N°SIREN : 310880315 [Adresse 1] DEMANDEUR - représenté(e) par Maître [Z] [L] Case n° 20 SELAS LEXI CONSEIL & DEFENSE [Adresse 2] EΤ * La SAS FATOU

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgments in his favour. The application was communicated to the Government.

Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2016, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings brought on the basis of the final court judgment rendered in their favour.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final court decision rendered in his favour.

De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 July 2008, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment in his favour on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances.

By a letter of 14 February 2013, the Government informed the Court that the Albanian authorities had enforced in full the final decision in favour of the applicant.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgment in his favour and its subsequent

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in his favour.

In the case of Mr Martov the Court notes that the first judgment in his favour has been enforced.

Those decisions in the applicants’ favour became final and enforceable, but the State delayed their enforcement.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 20 février 2025, la société par actions simplifiée Fatou Market forme opposition au commandement de payer aux fins de saisie vente émis à la

  1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR 8.

Thus the applicants could not have expected to claim compensation under the domestic law for non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour. 21.

the applicant’s favour admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;   2.

    The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the failure to enforce the final judgment in her favour had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 2.

  1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR 8.