prosecutor lodged thirty-three bills of indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court, charging the applicant with membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, and with disseminating propaganda in favour

, since the authorities refused to comply with court judgments and to pay them prior compensation as required by the Greek Constitution and, that they could not enforce the court decisions in their favour

On 12 January 2010 bailiff A sold the debtor’s property, that had been mortgaged in favour of the applicant company, in an auction to cover her debts.

by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established on account of the prolonged failure of the national authorities to enforce a final domestic judgment in the applicants’ favour

Without invoking any Article the Convention, the applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final court decision rendered in her favour on 27 August 2004 by the Municipal Court

concerning the authorities’ refusal to provide compensation in the form of shares in a specific company for property nationalised during the communist period, despite judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour

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

The Commission ruled in the applicant’s favour and quashed the tax assessment notice. The Tax Authority lodged an appeal with the Regional Tax Commission.

  On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

  On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

time-limit for lodging an appeal, at least about one year after the judgment of 26   December 2007 became final and binding, and of the consequent quashing of this judgment in the applicant’s favour

According to the Government, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was partly enforced, the outstanding debt being UAH   884.29 [2] .

In January 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogorodivskiy Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgments in his favour.

In December 2012 the applicant started proceedings against the Ministry of Justice under Law no. 87, complaining about the non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour and claiming compensation

The applicant firm complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the annulment of the final judgment of 26 September 2019, pronounced in its favour, breached the res judicata principle and that

.-92867 ISSY LES MOULINEAUX Représentée et assistée sur l'audience par Me Catherine FAVAT de la SELARL FBC AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : C1806 COMPOSITION DE LA COUR :

By August 2005 the judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced.

member of the Freemasons, on account of the conflict between the oath sworn by Freemasons and that sworn by judges, the hierarchical relationship between Freemasons, the rejection of State justice in favour

  On 7 December 2006 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention     ***   Press