Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0131JUD007580101
31 janvier 2008
31 janvier 2008
The judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 25.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0927DEC000334204
27 septembre 2007
27 septembre 2007
COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0703DEC002455803
3 juillet 2008
3 juillet 2008
By identically worded letters dated 25-28 December 2007 all the applicants informed the Court that the judgment of 20 November 2002 in their favour had been fully enforced in April 2004 and that
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1206DEC003068103
6 décembre 2007
6 décembre 2007
On 25 December 2003 the Town Court applied a different method of calculation of payments and recovered in the applicant’s favour RUB 34,500 and held that as of 1 January 2004 the applicant was entitled
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1750405-1835604
20 septembre 2006
20 septembre 2006
On 21 March 2006, the Chamber of the Court dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2943
9 janvier 2007
9 janvier 2007
The applicant maintained that the tax authorities claimed that the court decisions given in its favour should not be directly enforceable, but would require the prior confirmation of the awarded amounts
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2037194-2153163
13 juin 2007
13 juin 2007
On 7 December 2006 the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention Composition of the Court
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1963357-2064394
28 mars 2007
28 mars 2007
On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0920DEC007127112
20 septembre 2016
20 septembre 2016
COMPLAINT The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0430DEC002556110
30 avril 2019
30 avril 2019
On 10 March 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal, in the presence of I.S.’s representative and in the absence of V.S., quashed the previous judgment and adopted a new judgment in the applicant’s favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-156195
17 juin 2015
17 juin 2015
On 11 December 2007 the Malokarachayevskiy District Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic held in the applicant’s favour, ordering recalculation of the monthly payments and granted
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0301DEC001261113
1 mars 2016
1 mars 2016
COMPLAINT The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0301DEC001691913
1 mars 2016
1 mars 2016
COMPLAINT The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1123DEC004546013
23 novembre 2021
23 novembre 2021
As M. was already deceased, the court ordered the restitution in the applicant’s favour from the estate left by M. The judgment became final on 12 May 2009 and has not been enforced to date. 3.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217866
9 mai 2022
9 mai 2022
Owing to the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour the applicant applied to the Court and sought an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1205DEC002798423
5 décembre 2024
5 décembre 2024
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1201DEC005143510
1 décembre 2015
1 décembre 2015
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 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
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0203DEC005189817
3 février 2026
3 février 2026
The applicants complained of a prolonged non-enforcement of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) awards made in their favour, the absence
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-1621
5 mars 2009
5 mars 2009
She instituted proceedings before the civil court, which ruled in her favour in May 2002, ordering that she be allowed to reoccupy her room. The court decision was enforced about ten months later.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0502DEC001461403
2 mai 2006
2 mai 2006
On 17 February 2005 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim against the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court judgment in her favour.
Source officiellePage 72 sur 606