The complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour was communicated to the Government.

de la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET, avocats au barreau de GRENOBLE Compagnie d’assurance AXA ASSURANCES IARD, dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 5] représentée par Maître Laurent FAVET de la SELARL

The final judgment in the applicant’s favour was adopted on 11   May 2022.

of the Grand Chamber Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Seclusion of the applicants in their locked patient rooms in psychiatric hospitals due to their dangerousness: relinquishment in favour

Non-conviction based “preventive confiscation” of the applicants’ assets presumed to be proceeds of unlawful activities despite the acquittal of some of the applicants in criminal proceedings: relinquishment in favour

On 2 April 2012 the Myrgorod Court ruled in favour of the applicant.

of the Grand Chamber Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Seclusion of the applicants in their locked patient rooms in psychiatric hospitals due to their dangerousness: relinquishment in favour

    The applicants had final decisions in their favour against private parties rendered by national courts, on various dates, to be enforced.

N° RG 17/00869 - N° Portalis DBVM-V-B7B-I4WP N° Minute : AD Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

On an unspecified date a criminal investigation was instituted against the applicant on account of his having disseminated propaganda in favour of an illegal organization, namely the PKK (Kurdish Workers

On 12   September   2002, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was fully enforced and the applicant was paid 5168.60 UAH.

In May 2011, following their resumption, the first applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 2.

    Judgments in the applicant’s favour and the employer company’s insolvency 2.

  1 on account of the quashing of a final and binding judgment in his mother’s favour (see, for example, Ressegatti v.

A..., représenté par la SELARL Cabinet Laurent Favet, avocat, demande au tribunal : 1°) à titre principal, d’annuler l’arrêté du 17 octobre 2024 par lequel le préfet de la Loire lui a interdit l’exercice

B..., représenté par la SELARL Cabinet Laurent Favet, avocat, demande au tribunal : 1°) à titre principal, d’annuler l’arrêté du 17 octobre 2024 par lequel le préfet de la Loire lui a interdit l’exercice

A..., représenté par la SELARL Cabinet Laurent Favet, avocat, demande au tribunal : 1°) à titre principal, d’annuler l’arrêté du 17 octobre 2024 par lequel le préfet de la Loire lui a interdit l’exercice

  SECOND SECTION Application no. 70306/10 Muhsine Rengin TIĞRAK against Turkey lodged on 2 November 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing of a final judgment in favour

Grand Chamber Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of conscience Freedom of religion Medical treatment in the form of blood transfusions administered to Jehovah’s Witness against her will: relinquishment in favour

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in his favour.