On 26 January 2010 the Diyarbakır Labour Court accepted the compensation case brought by the applicant against his employer and ruled in his favour.

  1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour. However, the final judgments remained unenforced on account of public debt.

COMPLAINTS The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in his favour.

the judgment of 20 June 2003, which became final on 30 July 2003, the Justice of the Peace of the 34 th Court Curcuit of Velikiye Luki of the Pskov Region made a pecuniary award in the applicants' favour

the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arguing that despite the Constitutional Court’s decisions finding violations for non ‑ execution of domestic decisions in their favour

    The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in her favour. 4.

  1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour. However, the final judgments remained unenforced on account of public debt.

  1 of the Convention about the delayed enforcement of a judgment of a domestic court delivered in her favour.

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of domestic judgments in their favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

On 15 March 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) ruled in the applicant’s favour.

The final court judgment rendered in creditor’s favour remains unenforced to the present day.

    On 26 January 2010 the Diyarbakır Labour Court accepted the compensation case brought by the applicant against his employer and ruled in his favour.

    On 26 January 2010 the Diyarbakır Labour Court accepted the compensation case brought by the applicant against his employer and ruled in his favour.

that it would be in the children’s best interests to live with the applicant, on 29   August 2018 the Vyborgskiy District Court of St   Petersburg (“the District Court”) took a decision in favour

that it had seized some of the debtor’s property which was not covered by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, and that the court judgment in the applicant’s favour

    Comparable cases The applicant alleges that in identical cases brought by his colleagues, the national courts ruled in favour of the claimants, granting them vacation pay and per diem for

The judgment given in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full on 28   December 2004.

had not paid judgment debts to applicants: inadmissible Facts – On various dates the applicants obtained binding judicial decisions ordering municipal institutions to make certain payments in their favour

    Was the principle of equality of arms respected in relation to the collection and examination of evidence that was allegedly capable of influencing the outcome of the proceedings in favour