On 14 February 2006 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, in accordance with Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

Moreover, in subsequent supervisory review proceedings, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment which in part found in the applicant’s favour.

acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by the Convention due to the lengthy enforcement of the judgments of the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region of 27   February 2006 in favour

Russia (no. 20023/07) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour had been quashed by way of supervisory review.

  On 1 February 2005, the Chamber to which the case had been allocated, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

  1 that the State had failed to effectively assist her in enforcing a final judgment in her favour and that she did not have an effective remedy in that regard.

On 17   September 2013 the Barcelona Labour Court no. 33 ruled in favour of the applicant, declaring the dismissal discriminatory and null.

On 18 May 2006 the Zamostyanskiy District Court found in the applicant’s favour in part but held that the applicant could not be reinstated since the State Committee had been dissolved in 2005.

According to the Government the judgment in the applicant’s favour was fully enforced on 3 September 2003 and on that date the enforcement proceedings were terminated.

The applicant complained under Article 6 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 Convention about the

June   2002 the applicant lodged with the Kirovskyi District Court of Kyrovograd an administrative law complaint against the State Treasury of Ukraine for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour

    On 26 May 2008 the Izmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction delivered a judgment in the applicant’s favour.

lodged a complaint with a special anti-corruption police unit stating that the applicant had demanded a payoff, in the form of a new car, in return for admitting and deciding his civil claim in his favour

The first-instance court found in the applicant’s favour and she collected the amount awarded to her.

Judgment 6.4.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Refusal to reimburse costs borne in respect of a public prosecutor’s unsuccessful civil-law claim in favour

    The applicant complained under Article 6 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 Convention

  1 concerning the length of court proceedings in connection with the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicants’ favour against a private party were communicated to the Government.

On 24 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment in the applicant’s favour and finally dismissed her claims.

française, retraité Madame [B] [K] épouse [T] née le 20 mars 1955 à Agen (47000) de nationalité française, retraitée domiciliés ensemble : '[Adresse 8] [Localité 2] représentés par Me Betty FAGOT