The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour.

    The applicants complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

On 23   February   1998 the Lefortovskiy District Court ruled in the applicant's favour.

    The applicant complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of the Navy Court’s judgment of 20 August 2001 in his favour.

    The Centru District Court found in favour of the applicant on 11   June 2001, rejecting T.’s counter-claim.

    The applicant complained that the judgment given in his favour had not been enforced.

    In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed payment of the debt still owed to him under the judgment given in his favour.

    The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the judgment in his favour on supervisory review.

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the quashing of a decision in its favour with regard to the ownership of a building.

    The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour.

    On the facts, the Court observes that on 26 September 2001 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour.

The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final (except for the judgment of 12 March 2007 in the application no. 28391/08; see table below) but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

    On 1 June 1992 the First Municipal Court in Belgrade ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the bank to pay him 26,526.42 US Dollars (“USD”), 270.29 German Marks (“DEM”) and 324.06

    The applicant complained that the quashing of the final binding judgment in her favour was in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of

COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the expropriation of 3 April 2008 had been made solely to avoid the execution of the judgment in their favour dated 25 June 2004

In its judgment, the assize court held that the applicants had disseminated propaganda in favour of the TKP/ML, given that the second applicant had read out the press statement and the first applicant

the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by State authorities in their favour

31 January 2000 the Rostov Regional Department of Justice ( Главное управление юстиции Ростовской области ) replied to the applicant’s complaint concerning the non-execution of the judgment in her favour

  1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour to the Government.