On an unspecified date the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant and twenty other people with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(

    The applicant complained that the failure of the authorities to implement the final judgment in his favour, by virtue of which a State body owed to him a sum of money, breached his right

    In the declarations, the Government acknowledged that the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour and reopening of the proceedings had been in violation of Article  

    The applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final judgment rendered in his favour against the debtor.

On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former.

On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former.

On 24 November 2000 the Buiucani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the company to pay her 11,705 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 1,006 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation

    On 30 August 2017 the applicant’s complaint, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the non-enforcement of final domestic court decision rendered in favour of the applicant was

On 28 February 1996 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court No.13 for Civil Affairs ruled in favour of the applicant.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour.

  The Chamber to which the case was allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article   30 [1] .     Guja v.

They claimed that they had previously held a considerable amount of shares in private companies and had been coerced by third parties into alienating those shares in favour of the applicant in April 2011

She complained before the civil court which ruled in her favour in May 2002 ordering that she regain occupation of her room in the apartment.

The judgments of 4   August   2000 and 14   February   2003 given in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced to the present day.

    He also complains under Article 6 § 1 (in a letter to this Court of 5   February 2004) about the annulment of a final judgment in his favour. 3.

On 17 June 1991 the Ljubljana Basic Court ruled in the plaintiff’s favour. On 21 November 1991 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče) granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered a re-trial.

The judgment given in his favour has not been enforced. B.     Other events 1.

COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judicial awards in their favour.

In February 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonogradskiy Local Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.