English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

European Court of Human Rights states that the execution of final decisions is a compulsory provision for a fair hearing and a successful conlusion of a trial. The right to a court protected by Article 6 would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Execution of a judgment given by any court, is considered to be an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6.Based on the Article 1 of European Convention for Human Rights member states of European Council are obligated to implement the the decisions of ECHR in their domestic legislation in the context of building an efficient legal system.This paper aimes to analyze the legal system of member states regarding the reinforcment of decisions looking forword to identify issues, commonalities and diferences among states. What is the procedure followed in the process of execution? What do we understand with “Reasonable timeframe” and which are the legal requirements in which are based “Concrete deadlines” within a judicial decision should be executed? What is the significance of the enforcment agents in this process

European Council’s member states’ jurisdiction regarding the execution of court decisions and it’s issues