The applicant complained about non-enforcement of court judgments in its favour.

Both courts refused to make in the applicant’s favour, and against the Attorney General, an order regarding the costs of the case.

CEDEX 09 Rep/assistant : Maître Clémence AUBRUN de la SELARL BREU-AUBRUN-GOMBERT ET ASSOCIES, avocats au barreau d’AIX-EN-PROVENCE DEFENDEUR Monsieur [U] [D] 3, ROUTE DE ROGNES - IMPASSE DES FAVETTES

A B, représenté par Me Favet, demande au juge des référés : 1°) d'ordonner, sur le fondement des dispositions de l'article L. 521-1 du code de justice administrative, la suspension de l'arrêté du 11

Other judges found in favour of employers, considering that the system of equivalence to statutory working time was lawful, finding that the remuneration of night duty was consistent with the provisions

  On 31 August 1999, the Third Section decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72 §   1 of the Rules of Court

On 21 November 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest Tribunal declined jurisdiction in favour of the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.

DBVM-V-B7G-LIAE C2 N° Minute : Copie exécutoire délivrée le : la SCP ALIBEU & RAMBAUD-GROLEAS la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

Other judges found in favour of employers, considering that the system of equivalence to statutory working time was lawful, finding that the remuneration of night duty was consistent with the provisions

    The decision in the applicant's favour was enforced in full in November 2008. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 10.

    The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision issued in its favour against the municipality of Maglaj.

On 20 March and 22 November 2006 the Oleksandria Court delivered two judgments in favour of the first applicant and ordered the Energovugillya company (“the debtor”) to pay him certain pecuniary amounts

    The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

    The case concerns the conviction of the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. 2.

Cardona, Présidente, chargée de la mise en état N° RG 23/00048 - N° Portalis DBVM-V-B7H-LUTI N° Minute : Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à : la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

    Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the statutory prevention of the enforcement of a final and enforceable judgment in her favour.

    The applicant complained, in substance, about non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 September 2001 in his favour and various deficiencies accompanying the enforcement procedure.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in her favour. 4.

On the same date, the District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of a justice of the peace.