The Government alleged that the decisions in the applicants' favour had been erroneous in that the domestic courts wrongly interpreted and applied the relevant law and that therefore the

  1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that a judgment delivered in his favour in December

    The non-enforcement of the court judgments given in the applicant’s favour 16.

    On 31 October 2001 the applicant complained to the State Treasury about the non-execution of the judgment of 6   June 2000 given in his favour. 14.

    The judgment of 6   September   2000 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 10.

In particular, the applicant had referred only to the judgment which had been adopted in his favour on 10 February 2009.

    The applicants were convicted of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.

    On 14 July 1999, rehearing the case, the Chișinău District Economic Court ruled in the applicant’s favour but reduced the award of damages to MDL 42,730.

    The case concerns the tax authorities’ repeated refusal to refund overpaid taxes to the applicant company, despite several final court judgments in its favour, and the subsequent dismissal

    The applications concern the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour against the Sarajevo Canton (one of the ten cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Judgments in the applicants’ favour 6.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS’ FAVOUR 19.

Thus, in November 1998 she wrote to the President of the District Court asking for enforcement of the judgment in her favour. She renewed her request in May 2001.

    Decisions in the applicants’ favour against the debtor company 9.

    On 11 August 2009 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found in the applicant’s favour. In particular, it decided to declare the order of 27 February 2009 void.

The judge had accepted that there could be major difficulties with an attempted sale of Site B and broadly found in favour of the applicant's submissions as to the potential effect of the title defect

  1 to the Convention in respect of all twenty applicants on account of the quashing of the judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review.

    The applicant maintained that the execution of the court decision in his favour had not been a complex matter.

The applicant argued that the domestic judgment in his favour had stated that the monthly compensation payments would be made for life.