On 18 November 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of a final judgment in the applicant's favour to the Government.

Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention concerning: access to a court between October 1999 and January 2001; non-enforcement of a judgment of 14   February 2001 in the applicant’s favour

    The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.

DBVM-V-B7F-LDU5 N° Minute : C3 Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à Me Justine BARNOUIN SCP VBA AVOCATS ASSOCIES SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

Those judgments in the applicants’ favour became final and enforceable and were executed with some delays as indicated in the Appendix.

The Court is satisfied that the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour is acknowledged by the Government either explicitly or in substance.

However, in the instant case, the judgment in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced for a long time.

    The Government submitted that the Bailiffs’ Service had taken all necessary measures to enforce the judgment given in the applicants’ favour.

It ordered a one-time payment of RUR 2,360.44 and monthly payments of RUR 2,886.43 from 1 February 1999 onwards in the applicant's favour.

On the dates set out in the schedule the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments in their favour.

    The final court judgments in the applicants’ favour remain only partly enforced to the present day. 3. The legal status of the debtor 17.

Despite the final judgment in her favour, the applicant claims she has been unable to repossess her flat, not least because of the 2006 decree of the Abkhaz Parliament (see above for more detail).

la procédure suivante : Procédure contentieuse antérieure : L'association Sermaise Environnement et la Fédération des associations de protection de l'environnement de la Haute-Vallée de l'Orge (FAVO

The Court also highlighted the fact that this judgment of the Special Supreme Court was the sole decision in favour of blank ballot papers being included in the total number of valid ballot papers, as

guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 as a result of the authorities' failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by domestic courts in their favour

The company’s objection was rejected and the Labour Court found in favour of the union.

    The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

On 11 November 2005 the applicant obtained a final domestic judgment in her favour from Šabac Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud u Šapcu ) according to which “ Zorka – Mineralna Đubriva AD ”, a socially/State

The final court judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour remains only partly enforced to the present day. B.