CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0925DEC001791516
25 septembre 2018
On 17 January 1992 X requested the enforcement of the judgment of 7 June 1991 issued in his favour by the Leskovac Municipality Court (Serbia). 6 .
Page 68 sur 606
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0925JUD001012018
25 septembre 2025
The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in their favour.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1108JUD002209802
8 novembre 2005
The non-enforcement of the court judgments given in the applicant’s favour 16.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0901DEC003750603
1 septembre 2009
The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0201JUD003372805
1 février 2007
The Court notes that the delay in executing the judgment in the applicant's favour exceeded five years.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1129JUD001288402
29 novembre 2005
The applicant complains about the State authorities’ failure to execute the judgment of the Shostka City Court of 8 December 1998 given in her favour.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0713JUD002144704
13 juillet 2006
On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 18.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0215JUD000289021
15 février 2024
Between 18 May 2018 and 11 July 2019 the first-instance courts ruled in favour of four other claimants and awarded them the compensation in question, even though they had already obtained
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1011DEC001594804
11 octobre 2016
Accordingly, the judgments in the applicants’ favour should be regarded as issued against private companies.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0417JUD002621607
17 avril 2014
The applicant’s subsequent complaints about improper enforcement of the judgment in her favour 37.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-6934
27 avril 2000
The civil courts found in their favour and the applicant was ordered to apologise and to pay 100,000 Slovak korunas to each plaintiff. Admissible under Article 10.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-194924
2 juillet 2019
By contrast, in the case of his siblings, who according to the applicant were in exactly the same situation and followed the same line of appeals, the Audiencia Nacional ruled in their favour and declared
ECLI:CEDH:001-203211
27 mai 2020
He complains that he could not participate in those proceedings, eventually leading to the quashing of a final judgment in his favour, which had a direct impact on his civil rights and obligations.
ECLI:CEDH:001-198860
5 novembre 2019
At the same time, the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided similar cases both in favour and against the legal counsellors.
ECLI:CEDH:001-179771
8 décembre 2017
The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of Türkiye Komünist Emek Partisi/Leninist (TKEP/L) (Turkish Communist Labour Party
ECLI:CEDH:001-179945
According to the amendment, if the auction took place because the debtor (the original owner) had had a mortgage in foreign currency which he could not honour, then such eviction could not take place in favour
ECLI:CEDH:001-179766
11 décembre 2017
The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of
ECLI:CEDH:001-205931
14 octobre 2020
After the second-instance court ruled in the applicants’ favour and awarded them compensation, the Supreme Court, following the local authorities’ appeal on points of law, reversed the lower courts’ judgments
ECLI:CEDH:001-202676
26 mars 2020
Did the quashing of the judgment of 7 September 2011 in the applicant’s favour constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the
ECLI:CEDH:001-214866
7 décembre 2021
Domestic courts at two instances of jurisdiction ruled in favour of the plaintiff and held that the applicant had failed to appear despite having been duly summoned to the hearing of 18 December 2017.