The Court notes that according to the case-file materials the judgments given in the applicant’s favour have not been enforced, the non-enforcement periods ranging from six to nine years.

    The applicant complained that the failure to enforce a final judgment in his favour had violated his right to have his civil rights determined by a court as guaranteed by Article 6 of the

    The Court notes that the State's outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour is not in dispute.

    The applicant complained of the failure of the State authorities to execute the judgment of 5 December 2002 given in his favour.

    On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 21.

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

    The Court notes that the delay in executing the judgment in the applicant's favour exceeded four years.

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

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

By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged in various but very similar terms that judgments in the applicants' favour were not enforced in a timely manner ( e.g.

    The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible. 14.

    On 10 July 2014 the complaint concerning the failure of the national authorities to enforce two final domestic judgments in the applicant’s favour was communicated to the Government and the

    On 12 February 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her: (a)     salary arrears in the amount of 70,387.12 Serbian

    On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 19.

    On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 21.

    On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 21.

    On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 20.

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

    In August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pervomayskiy Town Court against the Pervomayskiy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour.