On 22 July 1998 the Centru District Court found in favour of the third party and ordered the eviction of the applicant from her apartment.

Bas. presented B.’s will in her favour and M. claimed to be the widow of the deceased and his heir-at-law.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to, the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the Republika Srpska by the Banja

  1 that the enforcement of the court’s decisions in his favour has been protracted and in breach of domestic law.

Consequently, the Government considered that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage as a result of the domestic judgment in his favour being quashed.

    All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the first ‑ instance and appeal courts found in their favour.

  1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of final domestic court decision rendered in her favour against socially-owned company.

European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   April 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş

European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   April 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş

European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   April 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş

De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2006, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government

The Court notes that the present applicant complained that final court decision rendered in his favour against a socially-owned company had not been enforced.

On 12 April 2006 the Ciocana District Court found in the applicant Church's favour and annulled the decision of 17 March 2006.

On 21 June 1999 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of CALBOR and awarded it MDL 1,877,212 (154,918 euros (EUR) at the time).

PREFET DE POLICE demande au Conseil d'Etat : 1°) d'annuler un jugement du 31 août 1998 par lequel le magistrat délégué par le président du tribunal administratif de Paris a annulé, à la demande de Mme Fatou

    The applicant complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce the final court judgment rendered in his favour.

    The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment in his favour.

  1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about delays in enforcement of the court awards in his favour. THE LAW 12.

    On 25   December 2005 the Parish asked for the supervisory review of the judgments in the applicant’s favour. 16.

Accordingly, the judgment in the applicant’s favour should be regarded as issued against a private company.