decisions in his favour remained unenforced (see Romashov   v.

    Judgment in the applicant’s favour 9.

    Thereafter the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in their favour enforced. 10.

He considered that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant following the annulment proceedings had breached the applicant’s rights under the Convention. 13.

Referring to that refusal, to the fact that the judgments in the applicant's favour had been fully enforced, and to the Court's decision in the case of Aleksentseva and Others v.

  1 that the domestic authorities had refused to enforce a binding judicial decision in their favour. A.     The circumstances of the case 4.

    The applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce three final judgments rendered in his favour against the same socially/State-owned company.

    On 8 March 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour to the Government.

The Court also notes that a protest was lodged against the final decision given in the applicant's favour. 28.

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

    In application no. 26330/09 a court decision was delivered in favour of the applicant’s deceased father in law.

They asserted that there had been no intention to disseminate propaganda in favour of the PKK.

    On 17 April 2014 the complaint, concerning the non-enforcement of judgments in the applicant’s favour, was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared

    The judgment in favour of the first applicant remains to large extent unenforced. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 26.

    The case concerns the non ‑ enforcement of a final and enforceable judgment in favour of the applicant company against a State ‑ run student residence (“the debtor”). 2 .

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

On 11 June 2003 the Supreme Court amended the Court of Appeal's judgment in the applicant's favour.

    The Court notes that the final court judgments rendered in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced to the present date. 15.

The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement.