On 1 October 2002 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    On 8 October 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment given in his favour had been enforced in full.

#xa0; On 22 September 2010 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration in which they acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights on account of the quashing of a final judgment in their favour

By a letter of 16 July 2010 the Government informed the Court that they acknowleged a delay in the enforcement of a number of judgments delivered in favour of the applicant’s clients between 2001 and 2003

    The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments given in their favour in due time.

    The applicant complained about a lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in their 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.

a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the applicants’ cases on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour

LEXAVOUE GRENOBLE - CHAMBERY la SCP SELORON HUTT GRANGEON la SCP CHAPUIS CHANTELOVE GUILLET-LHOMAT, la SELARL DENIAU AVOCATS la SELARL ROBICHON & ASSOCIES la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET

MMA IARD ASSURANCES MUTUELLES, Société MIC INSURANCE COMPANY Le : 02 Avril 2026 Copie exécutoire et copie à : la SELARL BSV la SELARL CABINET LAURENT FAVET la SELARL CDMF AVOCATS

    On 5 October 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment given in her favour remained unenforced. 18.

She further maintains that the judgment in her favour was never enforced as the sums due to her were not paid in full.

It further considered that the venue where the ceremony had been held had turned into a propaganda venue in favour of the PKK. 9.

    On 19 November 2003 the Municipal Court adopted a partial judgment ( delimična presuda ) in the applicant’s favour. This judgment subsequently became final. 6.

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.

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.

It appears that the enforcement proceedings were not resumed and the judgments in the applicant's favour were not enforced.