Le 21.01.2013, le comité d'entreprise du groupe E.CF (CHOMETTE FAVOR) a été consulté sur un projet de réorganisation commerciale en vue d'une nouvelle adaptation au marché.

    The first applicant argued in reply that the supervisory review had deprived him of the final award in his favour and had been unfair.

    The applicant complained about the quashing of the judgment in his favour by way of supervisory review and alleged violation of his property rights. 4.

    Thereafter the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in their favour enforced. 9.

They are both heirs of their deceased father and challenge the lengthy non-enforcement of the same judgment adopted in favour of their father. 4.

    The applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final judgment rendered in his favour. 5.

    The remainder of the final judgment rendered in her favour has remained unenforced to date. 13.

Hence, the enforcement warrant in favour of the applicant may be considered as having been issued against the State itself. 30.

Upon appeal, on 12   October 2004 the Burgas Court of Appeal rendered a judgment in the applicants’ favour.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of court decisions in their favour.

    In application no. 7508/11 the decision was delivered in favour of the applicant’s deceased father. The applicant claims to be his lawful heiress. 4.

JLCES [Adresse 4] [Localité 6] représentée par Maître Benoît FAVOT de l’AARPI NEGOTIUM AVOCATS, avocats au barreau de PARIS - #L0297 DEFENDERESSE La S.A.S.

grande instance de Nanterre, 1er octobre 1991), que Mme X... a déclaré au titre de l'impôt sur les grandes fortunes dû pour les années 1982 à 1986 la valeur d'actions de la société anonyme Chamette-Favor

COUR D'APPEL DE [Localité 1] CHAMBRE CIVILE 1° section RG N° : N° RG 21/01243 - N° Portalis DBVQ-V-B7F-FAVT-11 Madame [D] [S] Représentant : Me Isabelle BONY de la SELARL ANTOINE & BMC ASSOCIES

    On 6 March 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant favour to the Government.

On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress and frustration because of the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment in his favour within a reasonable time.

The State authorities were thus made aware of the applicant's claims, and, as soon as the judgment in his favour became enforceable, it was incumbent on the State to comply with it.

    The applicant complained of the failure of the State authorities to execute the judgment of 12 April 2001 given in his favour.

Romania (no. 17299/05) This case concerns the quashing of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour on an application by the Procurator-General.