The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. 4.

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

    According to the Government’s letter of 17 May 2012, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in April 2012. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 11.

The applicants also complained under the same Article about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 8 June 2004 in their favour.

    It is not in dispute that the final judgments in the applicant companies’ favour have remained unenforced for more than ten years to date.

Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour. on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law.

The decisions in the applicants’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

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

En l’espèce, étant donné que l’extension du procès pénal à l’égard du requérant du chef de favorisation de l’auteur d’une infraction avait été ordonnée, en première instance, à l’initiative du juge C.G.T

(d) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic authorities, i.e. the investigative bodies and the general courts, did not hear the witnesses they had requested to testify in their favour

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in its favour was quashed by the Supreme Court following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the Prosecutor

The first instance court found in favour of the applicant company but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice.

The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal armed organisation, under

the partial non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 15 June 2001, according to which a formerly wholly State-owned joint-stock company failed to fulfil certain contractual obligations in favour

The courts ruled in the plaintiff’s favour and ordered the applicant to issue a public apology and a refutation of his statements.

Application no. 15763/16 CAMERTON S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 16 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the reversal by the Supreme Court of Justice of two judgments in favour

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in the applicant’s favour was quashed by the Supreme Court following an extraordinary appeal on points of law filed by

requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention by the respondent State on account of the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom to enforce the final judgment in the applicant’s favour