Complaints concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.

    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 principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in his favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

    The applicant company complained principally of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in its favour. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10.

and indicted, inter alia , for having acted on the instruction of FETÖ/PDY and in his capacity as a journalist and previous editor-in-chief at the Taraf , by trying to manipulate public opinion in favour

lists of the servicemen who carried out demining work had been submitted to the Ministry for payment and that their entitlement to the allowances had not been disputed, the Municipal Court ruled in favour

    The applicant complained about the long non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour.

    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 of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

The prosecutor noted that the applicant’s injuries were of a trivial nature, that they could have resulted from his resistance to the officers, and that he had chanted slogans in favour of a terrorist

On 21 August 2004 the applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs for their failure to enforce the judgment in her favour.

    On 8 June 1993 the Berat District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered his reinstatement. The company appealed. 6.

  The applicant argued that the reversal of the final judgment in her favour had breached the principle of legal certainty.

Since no payments were ever made, she brought proceedings before Salsk City Court which found in her favour in a judgment which became final on 17 October 1998.

    The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints.

By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.

    The Government asserted that the quashing of the judgment in applicant’s favour did not contravene the principle of legal certainty, as the supervisory review court should have remedied any

They further complained about unfair hearings in their cases against State authorities following the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

    Two judgments in the applicants’ favour 11.