The judgment in his favour remains unenforced. The debt is equivalent to EUR 1,190.51. 12.

The judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced on 1   March 2007, while the applicant had raised the non-enforcement grievance on 9 February 2007.

After re-trial, on 8 December 2000 the Narimanov District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour and dismissed G.R.’s claims.

the judgment dismissing the appeal and the decision became final Article 6: - Suspension of the proceedings at the unilateral request of the Fund   - Absence of any ruling on attorney fees in favour

Accordingly, the award in the applicant’s favour has remained without enforcement for six years and nine months. 30.

  The Court held that Romania was to enforce the judgment in Mr Abǎluţǎ’s favour within three months of the date on which the Court’s own judgment became final.

On 21 October 1999, the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found in the applicant’s favour.

In a judgment dated 6 December 1989 (Judgment no. 1) the court ruled in the applicant’s favour finding that the administration failed to substantiate its view that he was not competent for the post.

    The applicants complained that the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour violated their right to a court under Article

    The applicant complained that the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in his favour violated his right to a court under Article 6 of

    The applicant complained that the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in his favour violated his right to a court under Article 6 of

    The applicants complained that the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour violated their right to a court under Article

Accordingly, the judgments in the applicant’s favour should be regarded as having been issued against a private company.

    On 18 May 2015 the complaint about non-enforcement of a final court decision in the applicant’s favour was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared

In particular, did the quashing of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour after the extension of the time-limits for appeal initiated by the public prosecutor violated the principle of legal certainty

On 20 February 2003 the Municipal Court (“ Četvrti opštinski sud “) in Belgrade ruled partly in the favour of the applicant, awarding him compensation for unjust enrichment ( neosnovano obogaćenje ).

In their observations of 9 April 2008 the Government submitted documentation accounting for the payments made by the Enforcement Department in the applicants’ favour under the binding judgment debt of

) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the failure of the electoral authorities to reinstate the applicants on the electoral lists despite the final judicial decisions in their favour

    The applicants complained that the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour violated their right to a court under Article