The court decided in his favour in August 2001 and ordered the military unit to pay him about EUR   819 in all including for the court fees incurred.

On 13 February 1995 the Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, but the applicant failed to seek judicial enforcement of that decision;     - on 21 December 1994 against “M.J.B.” d.o.o

    As regards application no. 77538/13, the Court notes, as also submitted by the Government, that the judgment of 7 June 2010 was issued in favour of a third party, and not the applicant company

They all obtained final judgments in their favour and enforcement warrants. However, the judgments have not been fully enforced to date.

    Length of the proceedings, including enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour, and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.

    The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision issued in her favour against the City of Zenica.

    On 6 July 2017 the complaints concerning extension of the time-limits for appeal and subsequent quashing of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were communicated to the Government

They argued that N.N. had testified in the applicant’s favour before the first-instance court.

favour violated their rights, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour, and a

In December 1987 the headmaster set up a fixed monthly allowance in favour of the CNEA’s director (i.e. himself) and general secretary (i.e. the applicant).

Romania (no. 20366/04) In this case the applicant complained about the annulment of a final judicial decision in her favour following an appeal by the procurator general.

Following one remittal, on 30 December 2005 the Fourth Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants.

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

Local Health Authority (ASL) of Lecce, the employer of his debtor, complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the domestic decisions given in his favour

Since during the proceedings he proposed further evidence in his favour after the time limits for such procedural act had already expired, the first-instance court did not examine that evidence.

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.

On 1 July 2008 the Chamber to which the case had been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [1] of the Convention. A hearing was held on 5 November 2008.

On 18 May 2006 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber [1] .

The Government argued that the judgment of 5 June 2002 was made in favour of the applicant’s son.