The Court notes that the delay in executing the judgment in the applicant's favour totalled approximately five years.

On 4 June 2001, after a new examination of the case, the Novooskolskiy District Court delivered a new judgment in the applicant’s favour.

    The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

It appears that the final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour have not been fully enforced.

    The applicant complained that he had been unable to enforce the judgment in his favour owing to the domestic court’s refusal to provide him with a copy of the said judgment.

The court considered that the concert in question had become a propaganda activity in favour of the DHKP/C and that the applicants had chanted slogans that were used by that organisation.

They stressed that they had not acted with the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of any illegal organisation. 13.

in A.N.’s favour violated their rights, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1   of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

    The applicants argued that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments delivered by domestic courts in their favour had violated the principle of legal certainty and, therefore,

in his favour remained unenforced (see e.g.

The decisions in the applicants’ favour became final, but remain unenforced.

    The applicants complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

    On 19 January, 3 February and 18 May 1998 the Labour Disputes Board found in the applicant's favour and awarded her salary arrears totalling 96,684.67 Russian roubles (RUR).

    The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible. 23.

    The applicants complained of an alleged failure by the State authorities to execute the court decisions given in their favour.

de la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET, avocats au barreau de GRENOBLE S.A.

    On 30 May 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment in its favour to the Government.

Article 41 Authorities' persistent failure to enforce domestic judgments in the applicant's favour without delay despite previous finding of violation by the Court in his case – practice incompatible with

On 26 December 2001 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the entire amount claimed. The Ministry appealed.