In a one-and-a-half-page decision, the Regional Court summarised the impugned decision and the applicant's appeal.

The judicial authorities deciding on the merits are not bound by this interim measure in their decision.

On 26 October 2006 the Zielona Góra Regional Court amended the impugned decision and awarded the applicant PLN   9,784. Both parties lodged interlocutory appeals.

The decision on the applicant’s appeal was notified in November 1993. He complains about the length of the proceedings.

By a final decision of 3 September 2020, the Timisoara Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of one count of illegal drug trafficking and unlawful possession of cannabis and sentenced him to five years

On 11 March 2005 the court dismissed the interlocutory appeal against the above decision. On 5 July 2005 the Oława District Court rejected another appeal lodged by the applicant to challenge a judge.

    On 30 October 2001 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He also filed a new motion for an exemption from court fees. 10.

of such a right in an interim decision.

Both the DNA and the applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the interlocutory judgment.

    On 10 August 2010 the bank appealed on points of law against the interlocutory judgment of 20 May 2010 (see paragraph 8 above).

    The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision to impose the preliminary injunction, arguing that it had infringed his freedom of expression, as his articles had been prepared

  Against an interlocutory decision (Zwischenentscheid) a public law appeal may be filed if it causes an irreparable disadvantage (einen nicht wiedergutzumachenden Nachteil).

in contempt of court for breaching the July 2004 interlocutor.

decision.

That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) on 27 April 2006, following an interlocutory appeal by the PPS. 10.

Par une décision n° 425577 du 23 novembre 2020, le Conseil d'Etat, statuant au contentieux a annulé cet arrêt et renvoyé l'affaire à cette cour.

    Par une décision du 10 novembre 2010, la cour d’appel de Chișinău rejeta le recours comme mal fondé et confirma le jugement du 31   octobre 2010. 12.

No additional supporting documents were submitted with the interlocutory appeal. 9.     On 28 June 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s interlocutory appeal.

    On 19 May 2016 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request and issued an unreasoned decision. 6.     No appeal lay against the above-mentioned decision. 7.

The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the latter decision. On 12 July 2010 the Gdansk Regional Court held a hearing. Despite his request, the applicant was not brought for the hearing.