Later, in his letter of 30 April 2002, the applicant has introduced an additional complaint about the lengthy enforcement of the court decision in his favour.

    Judgment in the applicant’s favour against the Moscow housing commission 7 .     The applicant is a former military officer.

    On 6 July 2017 the Sovetskiy District Court granted the applicant’s application for a residence order in his favour and dismissed a similar application by Z.

    The applicant complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour and its subsequent quashing by way of supervisory review. 4.

    Was the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour in the present case contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto?

Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of such a violation in spite of the judgment in his favour and the sum awarded to him (see Z. v.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal dated 9 October 2015, which set aside a final judgment in his favour, was in breach of the principle

Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the applicants’ continued inability to have enforced the final, binding judgment in their favour

Caroline HATET-SAUVAL de la SELARL CAROLINE HATET AVOCAT, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : L0046 - N° du dossier 47827 Intimée : Société SCPI ACCES VALEUR PIERRE, représentée par Me Catherine FAVAT

PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par le Centre nautique La Fourchette, représentée par Mme Barbat-Mosconi, dont le siège est à Favone

Her application raises allegations of serious irregularities in the tabulation process (including tampering with a large number of ballots initially counted in her favour during their storage in the constituency

By a final judgment of 17 May 1994 the Şoldăneşti District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 3,876.45   Moldovan lei (MDL) (940 euros (EUR) at the time).

Some of these proceedings are still pending whereas others finished with judgments in the applicant’s favour, awarding him certain sums of money.

On 17 January 2006 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

By letters of 20 February and 19 March 2003, the applicant was informed by the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgments in his favour could not be enforced due to prohibitions imposed by the courts and the

She further complained about a violation of Articles   1, 2   §   1 and 17 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment given in her favour.

On 14 February 2006 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, in accordance with Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about non ‑ enforcement of the domestic courts’ judgments in her favour.

COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Administrative Court’s judgment in his favour was not enforced.