The Court concludes that the Government did not offer any plausible justification for the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant company's favour.

The Court of Cassation’s decision was in favour of the authorities and the case was referred back to another Court of Appeal, where it is pending. Admissible under Article 6 § 1.

’s decision constitutes a violation of their right to a fair hearing and to respect for their possessions since they have no means of compelling the authorities to comply with the decision in their favour

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about prolonged non-enforcement of the decision in the applicant’s favour.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the inability to enforce a final domestic judgment in her favour.

After a judgment establishing the existence of the late I.K.’s will became final, judge I.S., acting as a single judge, ruled in favour of J.Č. and declared the will null and void on 21 February 2001.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the state authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment rendered in his favour

However, the IPT subsequently made no determination in their favour.

The applicant’s complaints concerning a violation of the principal of legal certainty on account of the quashing of a final judgment delivered in his favour were communicated to the Russian Government

The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention of lengthy non-enforcement of a court judgment in favour of her deceased husband.

The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour imposing an obligation on domestic authorities to ensure the applicant’s return to her place of residence and about the lack

regional department of the State Migration Service no. 07/20565/1 of 25 December 2015 by which the applicant’s request for a passport was rejected anew, after the final decision in the applicant’s favour

Did the appellate court give sufficient reasons for reversing the residence order in favour of the applicant made by the Sovetskiy District Court of Samara?

THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to allow the recognition of a final arbitration award delivered by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in favour

A written judgment delivered on 15 February 2008 found in favour of the plaintiffs and granted them injunctive relief. The applicants lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court on 18 June 2008.

The Board dismissed the extraordinary review request made under Article 308/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by three votes to two, with Judge H.Y.Ö. voting in favour of its dismissal.

view that the constitutional requirement of reciprocity for application of the provisions of Article 5 was not satisfied and that, accordingly, those provisions could not be applied in the applicant’s favour

Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment (Municipal Court in Novi Pazar judgment of 17   April 2004) rendered in his favour

The applicant’s complaints concerning extension of the time-limits for appeal and subsequent quashing of the final judgments in her favour were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”)

The announcement also contained calls in favour of increased teaching of the national language and the preservation of Islamic values.