The applicant maintains that the court judgment in his favour has not been enforced.

On 11 February 2003 the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to which the Grieves case had been assigned decided unanimously to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article

The case concerns lengthy non-enforcement of a final judgment given in the applicant's favour. The proceedings instituted on 4 November 1996 are still pending.

On 12 May 2006 the Adana public prosecutor charged the applicant and seven other people charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7(

COMPLAINTS   The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour.

her right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 29 of the Croatian Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention, had been violated when the Rijeka Administrative Court, while ruling in her favour

In such exceptional situations it was first necessary to ascertain that a number of prerequisites had been met, before weighing the compelling considerations in favour of making an award.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the inability to enforce a final judgment in their favour.

    Facts initially submitted by the applicant On 25 November 1999 the Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud ) in Majdanpek found in favour of the applicant and ordered Rudnik Bakra Majdanpek (“RBM

  2911), disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal organisation under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.

The court of first instance (the court) had come down in favour of a customised solution tailored to the applicants’ specific needs, thus offsetting the lack of a specific statutory framework for Jewish

By a letter of 30 January 2009 a bailiff afforded the Ministry of Finance a time ‑ limit of fifteen days to comply with the judgment in the applicant’s favour; the original of the judgment was attached

The applicant complained that the opening of appeal proceedings and the quashing of a final judgment in her favour breached the principle of legal certainty under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.

    Domestic judgments in favour of the applicant On 4 December 2001 the Commercial Court of St.

On 17 June 1997 the High Court found in favour of the defendant.

On 11 April 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.

Between 29 December 1980 and 25 May 1993, the Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud ) in Velika Plana issued five judgements, ruling partly in favour or against the applicant’s father, but each time the District

COMPLAINT The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments rendered in her favour.

In July 2009 the court found in their favour. In October 2009 the judgment became final as no appeal had been lodged on points of law.

On 19 March 2001 the Military Court of Moscow Garrison again decided in the applicant’s favour ordering the Ministry of Defence and the Military Engineer Academy jointly to provide the applicant with housing