The Court observes that on 11 October 2001 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour. On 23 May 2002 the judgment became enforceable against the Treasury.

    The applicant obtained judgments in his favour on 23 April 1996, 20   August 1998 (upheld on 23 February 1999), 26 April 1999 (upheld on 27   February 2002 and on 17 October 2002

  1 ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered compensation of AZN   1,500 per sq. m of the property (AZN   142,800 in total).

the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by State authorities in their favour

The FBH was ordered to enforce the final judgments in their favour without further delay.

    In order to enforce the judicial decisions given in his favour, the applicant instituted separate sets of enforcement proceedings which, according to the information available in the case

    Complaints concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.

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

    Relying on Article 17 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour.

On 31   May 2018 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow ruled in favour of Mr Usmanov, determining that the statements in the documentary constituted statements of facts rather than value judgments

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions issued in their favour for the professional services they had performed for the Consortium of

    The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour.

    The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment given in her favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard.

  1 to the Convention, the applicant complained of the non ‑ enforcement of the judgment of 12   September 2003 in her favour, prior to its quashing.

    In August   2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour.

    The applicant complained about the length of the enforcement of the judgment in her favour.

    The applicant complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final court decision rendered in his favour against the debtor and of the lack of an effective remedy in that connection

    The applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce final judgments rendered in his favour against the debtor.

    The applicant complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce final court judgments rendered in her favour and of the lack of an effective remedy in that connection.