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.

    On 5 July 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan ruled in the applicant's favour and ordered the Ryazan Town Administration to provide the applicant with an appropriate housing for a

    On 4 April 1994 the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant. 10.

duty: the applicants had direct personal and professional interests in the manner in which the Council’s statutory duty to repair roads was exercised, and this represented a strong private element in favour

The applicant company complained of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in its favour.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour.

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non-enforcement of a judgment in their favour.

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 her favour against a socially/State-owned

The applicant company complained that the non-enforcement of final judgments rendered in its favour had infringed its right to access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also its

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the Civil Court of Appeal dated 26 May 2016, which set aside the final judgment in their favour, was in breach of the

The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about non-enforcement of a court judgment in their favour.

October 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention on account of his conviction for disseminating propaganda in favour

It invoked the positions taken by the party’s chairman and leaders in favour of the Islamic headscarf being worn in schools, universities, public administrations and in the National Assembly, as well as

The applicant complained about non-enforcement of a court judgment in her favour. The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

    Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession because of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, contrary to the requirements of Article

she wanted to withdraw the application to the Court since, following communication of the present application to the respondent Government, the proceedings were reopened and a final judgment in her favour

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of a judgment in her favour.

The applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in his favour were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations

Following the examination, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court, given in the applicant’s favour, found the applicant guilty of causing the traffic accident and closed