On 3 March 2003 the City Court made a similar award in favour of the second applicant for the sum of UAH 2,178.35 [2] . 8.

    The Court observes that on 11 May 2004 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which he and his family members were to be granted a flat.

de la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET, avocat au barreau de GRENOBLE, toque : B113 La Compagnie l'AUXILIAIRE ès-qualités d'assureur de la société RAVOIRE [Adresse 13] [Adresse 20] [Localité 15]

    The applicant complained   that the failure to enforce the final judgment of 22   August 2002 in her favour had violated her right to have her civil rights determined by a court

    On 19 November 2003 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour to the Government.

  1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour to the Government.

applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court decisions in his favour

SOCIETE DES CYCLES ET VELOMOTEURS FAVOR C / X.... PREMIER PRESIDENT : M. BORNET - RAPPORTEUR : M. LECOUFFE - AVOCAT GENERAL : M. ITHIER - AVOCATS : MM. DE SEGOGNE ET LEPANY.

expressed a wish to pursue the application in his stead in so far as the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour

    The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the decision given in his favour on 1 August 2005.

    The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicant complained that the failure to enforce the final judgment in her favour had violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicants complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce final court judgments rendered in their favour and of the lack of an effective remedy in that connection.

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants' favour.

  1 to the Convention on account of the non ‑ enforcement of the judgment of 9   April 2007 in the applicant’s favour.

    The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a final domestic judicial decision given in its favour against a federal State unitary enterprise.

the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Constitutional Court by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, arguing, inter alia , that the quashing of the final and binding judgment in her favour