applicant had allegedly failed to provide the Court with important information regarding the course of the domestic proceedings at issue, notably that the execution of the judgment rendered in his favour

permettant un parcours de soins gradué et cohérent sur le plan somatique et psychiatrique, -la mise en oeuvre de fonctions supports efficientes bénéficiant à tout établissement du territoire, -la favorisation

It deemed that, under domestic law, this fact was an insufficient basis for adjudging the case in the applicant’s favour.

involved in activities in favour of the MLKP.

    Judgments in the applicant’s favour and the company’s liquidation 1. First judgment in the applicant’s favour 8.

    The applicants alleged that it had been impossible for them to obtain enforcement of judicial decisions rendered in their favour. 4.

Despite this the courts ruled in its favour.

On   13 January 2012 the Basic Court ruled in their favour. This judgment was overturned by Belgrade Court of Appeal on 4   April 2013. 52.

    By a judgment of 2 June 2000, the Naples Tribunal (Labour Section) found in favour of the applicants.

In particular, the prolonged non-enforcement of outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard; the annulment of their titles on account of the State

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICANT’S FAVOUR 17.

    The applicant complained about the quashing of the judgment in his favour by way of supervisory review and alleged a violation of his property rights. 4.

cannot be considered a “victim” of the alleged violations related to the non-enforcement of the judgments since she was not a party to the proceedings and did not obtain an enforceable award in her favour

    The applicants submitted that the enforcement of the judgment against the State in their favour had been delayed without valid reasons.

    The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto of the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

    Given the case-law provided by the parties, in their reasoning in those judgments where the said courts/different benches of the same court had indeed ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, the

, one in Mr Wyszkowski’s favour, two remittals on appeal and the final judgment partly granting the applicant’s claim.

They submitted that such an action was a precondition for the authorities to be able to enforce the judgments in favour of the applicant.

    The Court notes that the judgments in favour of these applicants have not yet been fully enforced.