On 1 February 2005, the Chamber to which the case had been allocated, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

He also complains, at least in substance, about the alleged non-enforcement of the court decision in his favour. The applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 in this respect.

Russia (no. 20023/07) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review.

  1 of the Convention of the authorities’ failure to enforce a court judgment in their favour in due time. Some of the applicants also raised grievances under other provisions of the Convention.

In the continued proceedings, by a partial judgment (“ delimična presuda ”) issued on 25 August 2008, the Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour and ordered her employer to pay her the specified

In the proceedings before the European Court, in all but two cases the Government submitted unilateral declarations acknowledging the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and

That accusation, provided for by Article 100 §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entailed a presumption in favour of keeping the persons concerned in pre-trial detention.

That accusation, provided for by Article 100 §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entailed a presumption in favour of keeping the persons concerned in pre-trial detention.

On 29 August 2006 the Ivano-Frankivsk Town Court ruled in her favour and invalidated the disputed contract.

In some decisions the courts, without providing further details, additionally noted that: -     the applicant had failed to present evidence confirming that the risks in favour of her detention

On 22   April 2010 the Gliwice Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) found in the applicant’s favour and dismissed the municipality’s action.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the failure by the national authorities to enforce the final court decision rendered in his favour.

  1 to the Convention, the applicant complains of an infringement of the principle of legal certainty as a result of the quashing of the final and enforceable judgment in her favour.

On 23 January 2009 the bailiff ordered the applicant’s employer to pay the salary arrears in favour of the applicant in respect of the period from 10   November 2005 to 22 November 2007.

xa0; Italy ( 25035/94 , 15   April 1996) the European Commission of Human Rights had found that the Convention did “not compel the Contracting Parties to provide for positive discrimination in favour

The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour against a private party. She relied on Article 6 of the Convention.

found by the Court in these cases concern the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as a result of the quashing of final judgments delivered in their favour

These courts found in their favour. However, the Court of Cassation, to which the employer appealed, discontinued the proceedings by overturning the labour courts’ judgments.

THE LAW The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments in his favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.