Judgment of 21   December 2005 in the applicant’s favour 15.

Thus, a situation where the binding judgments in the applicant’s favour were called into question could have been avoided, had the Department lodged an ordinary appeal.

The second applicant company also complained that the final judgment in its favour had been subsequently quashed following a misuse of revision proceedings. 4.

    By a judgment (no. 56/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company.

He addressed the following statements specifically to Mr Miniakhmetov: “Faggot! Absolute faggot. Faggot, faggot, faggot, get out of here. I will give you a holed spoon [1] ”.

Par une requête enregistrée le 6 décembre 2023 sous le numéro 2316357, la société Le Court Puteaux, représentée par Me Favot, doit être regardée comme demandant au tribunal : 1°) d'annuler la décision

As a result of civil proceedings initiated by its Moldovan partner, the applicant company lost its investment in favour of the latter.

The application concerns the applicants’ conviction for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of their visit to

The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the second-instance court’s judgment, reversing the first-instance court’s judgment rendered in her favour, lacked adequate reasoning

The applicant has been unable to have regular contact with his son for more than ten years, despite several court judgments and enforcement orders in his favour.

[Localité 6] Madame [S] [Y] veuve [E] [Adresse 3] [Localité 9] Madame [H] [Y] épouse [C] [Adresse 2] [Localité 9] Monsieur [L] [Y] [Adresse 1] [Localité 5] Tous représentés par Maître Catherine FAVAT

représentée par Maître Sylvie EX-IGNOTIS de la SCP FOUCHE EX IGNOTIS, avocats au barreau de VAL-DE-MARNE, ET : La Société MSB, dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 2] représentée par Maître Benoît FAVOT

    The applicants complained about the continued non-enforcement of the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 in their favour.

  1 about quashing of judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR 10.

  1 concerning the delay in the enforcement of judgments given in the applicants' favour to the Government.

    The applicant complained, in particular, of the State's failure to enforce the final judgment in his favour. 4.

    On an unspecified date the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court lodged an application seeking a supervisory review of the judgments made in the applicants' favour. 7.