1 of the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgment in their favour by way of supervisory review. THE LAW I.

    The applicant complained of the failure of the State authorities to execute the judgments of 16 June 1999 and 11 April 2001 given in his favour.

Moldova (no. 32760/04) This case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in its favour.

    The applicant complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final court judgment rendered in her favour against the debtors.

    The Court notes that the judgment in the first applicant's favour has not been enforced in full for three years and the judgment in the second applicant's favour has not been enforced in

On the dates set out in the schedule the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments in their favour.

    The Court observes that on 2 October 1997 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which he was to be paid a certain sum of money by the facility AB-239, a State body.

Romania (no. 6206/03) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time.

    The Court notes that the final court decisions rendered in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced to the present date. 31.

On 23   February   1998 the Lefortovskiy District Court ruled in the applicant's favour.

    The applicant complained, in particular, that the quashing, upon an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the Prosecutor General, of a final and binding decision in his favour had

    The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgments in their favour.

    The judgment given in favour of the applicants and its enforcement 10.

On 1 July 2008 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.

  The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that they were awarded derisory damages despite decisions in their favour with regard to serious breaches of their privacy.

By letters of 31 January 2002, 5 October 2004 and 26 August 2005, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgments given in her favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds

On 17 January 2006 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 30 [2] of the Convention.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced in good time. 4.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced in good time. 4.