Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0412JUD007503501
12 avril 2007
12 avril 2007
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.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0412JUD007503001
12 avril 2007
12 avril 2007
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.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0607JUD007654201
7 juin 2007
7 juin 2007
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.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2015336-2126925
6 juin 2007
6 juin 2007
On 20 February 2007 the Chamber to which the case was allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [2] .
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68226-68694
14 décembre 2000
14 décembre 2000
The case has been struck out after a friendly settlement was agreed between the parties, in which: “The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognise a life tenancy in favour
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1322641-1391898
3 mai 2005
3 mai 2005
They subsequently complained that the State authorities failed to execute judgments given in their favour, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0606DEC002019305
6 juin 2006
6 juin 2006
The debtor paid the applicant UAH 270, but the rest of the judgment in the applicant’s favour was not enforced.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0202DEC002853403
2 février 2010
2 février 2010
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the late enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. 2.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-124246
17 juillet 2013
17 juillet 2013
In particular, was the principle of rule of law respected when a part of the final judgment in applicant’s favour had been quashed upon a request for the protection of legality lodged by the State Attorney
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0610DEC003468508
10 juin 2014
10 juin 2014
established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s rights to enforcement of final court decisions rendered in his or her favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1106DEC003492916
6 novembre 2018
6 novembre 2018
1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of final domestic court decision rendered in her favour against socially-owned company.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0401DEC006575612
1 avril 2014
1 avril 2014
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of final judgment adopted in their favour against the Republika
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0401DEC007757412
1 avril 2014
1 avril 2014
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of final domestic judgment adopted in his favour against the Republika
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-13488
23 novembre 2021
23 novembre 2021
children, his obstruction of the first applicant’s contact with the children, and the domestic authorities’ manifest inaction and unwillingness to enforce the previous judgments in the first applicant’s favour
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0412JUD000819002
12 avril 2007
12 avril 2007
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.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1004DEC002665603
4 octobre 2005
4 octobre 2005
By a judgment of 3 December 1997 the District Court decided in the applicant’s favour.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1870036-1963645
13 décembre 2006
13 décembre 2006
On 1 June 2006, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention, the Chamber dealing with the cases relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0311DEC001411805
11 mars 2008
11 mars 2008
On 4 July 2000 the District Court issued an enforcement order ( tytuł wykonawczy ) in favour of the applicant. On 7 June 2004 the bailiff summoned Z.W. to require him to vacate the applicant’s flat.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0402DEC000383410
2 avril 2013
2 avril 2013
On 11 December 2006 the Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya held in applicants’ favour and ordered the Military Base A-2502 (the applicants’ former employer) to pay them various
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-13633
12 avril 2022
12 avril 2022
imposed on pro-euthanasia physician for assistance and advice to specific persons on how to commit suicide: no violation Facts – The applicant, a retired physician, and member of an association in favour
Source officiellePage 95 sur 606