Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1118DEC000260405
18 novembre 2008
18 novembre 2008
On 7 May 2004 he repeatedly asked the Department to enforce the two final judgments in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0426DEC002519809
26 avril 2016
26 avril 2016
1 to the Convention about the lengthy enforcement of judgements in their favour and the inability to obtain compensation in this respect in the domestic proceedings in accordance with the new Compensation
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-204713
27 août 2020
27 août 2020
In some other polling stations, according to the applicant, there was no evidence that the expert had inspected the ballots cast in his favour.
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2044376-2181081
5 juillet 2007
5 juillet 2007
On 29 March 2007 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-3640
20 octobre 2005
20 octobre 2005
In 1999 a regional commercial court found in K.’s favour and an appellate panel upheld the judgment, following which it became enforceable and a writ of execution was issued.
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2150175-2283914
18 octobre 2007
18 octobre 2007
On 1 June 2006, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention, the Chamber dealing with the cases relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2057873-2178037
4 juillet 2007
4 juillet 2007
On 3 May 2007 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0506DEC000090104
6 mai 2008
6 mai 2008
indexation of the judgment award of 20 June 2003 On 10 December 2004 the Kameshkovo District Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,989.12 in indexation of the judgment award made on 20 June 2003 in his favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0403DEC003309702
3 avril 2007
3 avril 2007
On 3 May 2001, the Novogrodovsky Town Court found in favour of the applicant ( Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области ) and awarded him UAH 3,315.5 (around 550 euros).
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2128257-2258296
26 septembre 2007
26 septembre 2007
On 22 May 2007 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0128DEC002218606
28 janvier 2014
28 janvier 2014
She also complained about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the enforcement of the final decisions rendered in her favour. The application had been communicated to the Government .
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-116640
14 janvier 2013
14 janvier 2013
On 11 March 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-113073
5 avril 2011
5 avril 2011
On 29 May 2008 the Andorra Tribunal de Corts had issued a stay-away order against the applicant in favour of his wife. The applicant appealed against the decision of 24 July 2008.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0517JUD004226715
17 mai 2022
17 mai 2022
1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0502JUD006438714
2 mai 2023
2 mai 2023
The application concerns the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour by virtue of which a municipal council was obliged to initiate a privatisation procedure
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-152676
3 février 2015
3 février 2015
On the dates set out in the table below domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken in their favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-248741
19 janvier 2026
19 janvier 2026
Following a remittal in 2015, the Belgrade Basic Court and Court of Appeals, on 18 February 2015 and 18 September 2015, respectively, ruled in the applicant’s favour by referring to the above-mentioned
Source officielleChambre 22 / Proxi référé
6622b0aac91e3bdd7a889a79
19 avril 2024
19 avril 2024
CARL Représentant : Maître Catherine FAVAT de la SELARL FBC AVOCATS, avocats au barreau de Paris, vestiaire : C1806 ORDONNANCE DE RÉFÉRÉ DU 19 Avril 2024 DEMANDEUR : Madame [R] [I] [Adresse 5
Source officielle7ème CHAMBRE CIVILE
6631325019f939ca6242c0f6
30 avril 2024
30 avril 2024
VOLTAGREEN [Adresse 4] [Localité 7] représentée par Me Fanny PENCHE, avocat au barreau de BORDEAUX, avocat postulant et Me Michèle UZAN-FALLOT, avocate au barreau de PARIS, avocat plaidant S.A.S.
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-55775
11 juin 1998
11 juin 1998
applicant, were unable under Dutch legislation to obtain recognition of the second applicant's paternity of the third applicant as regards the presomption of paternity existing under Dutch legislation in favour
Source officiellePage 85 sur 606
WURTZ, Francoise, Simone, FAVOT
07/07/2026
Voir →
FAVOT, Michelle, Léone
30/06/2026
Voir →
FAVOTTO, Angélique, Maryse, Laetitia, MOMMAYOU
09/06/2026
Voir →
FAVOTTE
28/05/2026
Voir →
FAVOT LIVERA MAGENTA
26/05/2026
Voir →