The proceedings against the applicant in respect of the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation (section   7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act) on the basis of

Juillet 2012 -Tribunal d'Instance de Paris 12 - RG n° 12-000103 APPELANTS Monsieur [G] [M] [J] [X] [Adresse 2] [Localité 4], France Rep/assistant : la SELARL FBC AVOCATS (Me Catherine FAVAT

d'une terrasse de 358 m², d'un stockage de gravats de 30 m² et d'une benne de 8 m² sur la parcelle cadastrée section B n° 823 (anciennement B n° 107) sur le territoire de la commune de Conca (plage de Favone

In disputes between them and the domestic pension authorities, the first ‑ instance courts ruled in their favour.

    The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, obliging local public authorities either to pay compensation for unlawfully confiscated property or to provide them with social

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

    The applicant complained that the judgment of 19 October 1998 in his favour remained unenforced. He relied on Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

    By a final judgment of 4 June 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held in the applicants’ favour, establishing their right to receive damages to be paid from the State budget.

    The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage as a result of the lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour.

By a Resolution of 10 June 1998, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 30 May 1994 given in the applicant’s favour. It remitted the case to the DCC for fresh consideration.

According to the applicants, the court awards in their favour have not been fully enforced to date. 2.

    On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and delivered a new one, finding in the applicants’ favour.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOUR 11.

    Those judgments included: (i)     in favour of the first applicant company, the judgments in: file no.

Ukraine - 33949/02 Judgment 9.11.2006 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of court and its president who had accepted favours from applicant's opponent without

The District Court found in her favour and awarded her the sum of 129,544,106 roubles, to be paid out of the State Treasury. The judgment became final.

The first instance court to which the case was referred back decided in favour of the applicant and D.S.’s following appeal was turned down. Admissible under Articles 9, 10 and 14.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the domestic courts ignored material evidence and witnesses’ statements given in her favour.

While the first- and second-instance courts found in his favour, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected his complaint as unfounded, referring to the impossibility for U. to verify the authenticity of the