The Court deliberated on 4 February 1997 and on 17 April 1997 the Court delivered an interlocutory decision whereby it invited Apco to prove its allegations according to which the machine was defective

Within 14 days of being served with it, a foreigner can lodge an interlocutory appeal against the decision with the head of the Aliens Office.

Cette réclamation a été rejetée par une décision du 8 janvier 2021. Par sa requête, Mme B demande la décharge de ces impositions supplémentaires.

Le représentant du requérant se vit notifier la décision le 4 novembre 1993. 14.

Toutefois, il a abandonné cette procédure, laissant sans suite un jugement interlocutoire du 3 janvier 1983 lui demandant de produire certaines pièces nécessaires à la prise de décision par le juge.

On 14 December 1998 the Tallinn Court of Appeal ( Tallinna Ringkonnakohus ) upheld the decision concerning the interlocutory measure.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une décision du 3 mars 2022, le Conseil d'Etat statuant au contentieux a prononcé l'admission partielle des conclusions du pourvoi de Mme B A dirigées contre l'arrêt n° 20PA00809

    The applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against that decision. He argued that he did not have a permanent place of residence.

In a letter to the court dated 14 March 2002 a new legal-aid lawyer assigned for the purpose of interlocutory proceedings refused to lodge an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 11 February 2002

The decision to stay the execution proceedings did not annul the actions and decisions of the bailiff delivered before.

The applicant party lodged an interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court.

The injunction proceedings In an interlocutory decision of 16 December 2003, the Vake-Saburtalo District Court in Tbilisi allowed the applicant’s request for an injunction, ordering the Land Registry to

In a final decision of 19   November   2012 the Piteşti Court of Appeal upheld the County Court’s decision.

    By decision of 3 October 2007 the Vienna Court of Appeal ( Oberlandes ­ gericht Wien ) granted the appeal, thereby setting aside the Regional Court’s decision of 6 July 2007.

The decision on the merits became final on 16 May 2020, while the decision on the costs and expenses was challenged by the defendant, whose interlocutory appeal was dismissed on 20 July 2020. 8.

By an interlocutory judgment of 28 November 2005 the County Court rectified this mistake. 11.

The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal, which was dismissed by the court on 12 March 2007.

On 22 November 2012 the decision of 30 October 2012 was amended. On 7 January 2013 the previous decision was amended.

    When the decision was pronounced on 23   February 2005, the applicants orally lodged an interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) against it.

to the decision appealed against, but also to decisions that are its necessary complement".