Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217510
3 mai 2022
3 mai 2022
The first-instance court ruled in favour of the applicant and dismissed the State’s civil action.
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-72635
1 mars 2006
1 mars 2006
Moldovan authorities have regularly informed the Committee of the steps they have taken to secure the applicants’ release; Noting that the Russian authorities have recently declared themselves in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-192857
3 avril 2019
3 avril 2019
Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in the applicant company’s favour was quashed by the Supreme Court following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0427DEC000676407
27 avril 2010
27 avril 2010
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour against a State entity.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4226
23 septembre 2004
23 septembre 2004
The latter overturned the judgment, and the case was sent back to the first-instance court, which again ruled in favour of the trade union. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1001DEC003301212
1 octobre 2013
1 octobre 2013
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the non-enforcement of a judgment rendered in his favour against a socially-owned company
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249847
24 mars 2026
24 mars 2026
On 5 June 2022 the High Court quashed the first-instance judgment and ruled partly in favour of the applicant. On 26 September 2022 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-202799
17 avril 2020
17 avril 2020
The relevant Labour Court ruled in the applicant’s favour (judgment of 24 February 2014).
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-243054
11 avril 2025
11 avril 2025
company complains that it was not served the constitutional complaint and was unable to participate in the constitutional proceedings, eventually leading to the quashing of a final judgment in its favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-209975
14 avril 2021
14 avril 2021
Zoran VLAHOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 15 October 2010 communicated on 14 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a final court judgment issued in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-244736
4 août 2025
4 août 2025
applications concern the criminal conviction of the applicants to a prison sentence combined with a measure of suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment on charges of disseminating propaganda in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249950
2 avril 2026
2 avril 2026
a request by the Bailiffs’ Service, the domestic courts prohibited the applicant from leaving Ukraine on account of his failure to repay a debt arising from a court judgment, delivered in 2016, in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-207944
11 janvier 2021
11 janvier 2021
, delivered in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of the defendant’s representative, the Higher Administrative Court quashed the judgments of lower courts delivered in the applicant’s favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-192858
3 avril 2019
3 avril 2019
Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in the applicant’s favour was quashed by the Supreme Court following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the Prosecutor
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249687
20 mars 2026
20 mars 2026
On 27 February 2019 the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled in favour of the State, transferring ownership of the land plot to the Republic of Serbia.
Source officielleJLD
686831cf4965b5d9df3213c7
4 juillet 2025
4 juillet 2025
3], demeurant [Adresse 1] (bénéficie d’une aide juridictionnelle Totale numéro du 04/07/2025 accordée par le bureau d’aide juridictionnelle de [Localité 2]) non comparante, représentée par Me Inès FAGOT
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-192860
3 avril 2019
3 avril 2019
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in his favour was quashed by the Supreme Court following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the Prosecutor
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0111DEC004563107
11 janvier 2011
11 janvier 2011
Relying on Article 6 § 1, Article 14 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained to the Court that despite the judgments given in his favour, the respective State authorities
Source officielleTribunal Administratif de Grenoble
ORTA_2200638_20230407
7 avril 2023
7 avril 2023
Par un mémoire enregistré au greffe le 5 avril 2023, les sociétés Expera Assurances, exerçant sous l'enseigne MMA Entreprise, MMA Iard Assurances Mutuelles et MMA Iard SA, représentées par Me Favet, demandent
Source officielleTribunal Administratif de Grenoble
ORTA_2208209_20240606
6 juin 2024
6 juin 2024
Par un mémoire enregistré le 26 avril 2024, la société AXA France Iard représentée par Me Favet demande au juge des référés que les opérations de l'expertise prescrite par l'ordonnance n°2208209 du 25
Source officiellePage 87 sur 606