By a ruling of 23 December 2011, the Court of Appeal opened appeal proceedings in the applicant’s case.

- EXISTENCE - Immeubles menaçant ruine - Travaux de démolition prescrits par arrêté du maire entièrement exécutés.

des immeubles menacant ruine - Procédure de péril - Champ d'application de la législation - Mur édifié sur le domaine public.

36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } DEUXIÈME SECTION Requête n o 17528/05 CONDOMINIO PORTA RUFINA

Les modifications législatives pertinentes concernant cette loi sont décrites dans Condominio Porta Rufina n o   48 di Benevento c.

It had given its ruling after hearing evidence from the interested parties, on the basis of its case-law established in a judgment of 16 July 2003.

Others against Greece lodged on 13 August 2019 communicated on 10 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the tacit refusal of the Court of Cassation to seek a preliminary ruling

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Hamburg - Germany.#Case 28-70.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundessozialgericht - Germany.#Tuberculosis benefits.#Case 16-72.

. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Münster - Germany. # Case 2-77.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Amtsgericht Essen - Germany.#Case 93/78.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Københavns Byret - Denmark.#Road passenger transport.#Case 21/78.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de commerce de Paris - France.#Competition - Perfumes.#Case 37/79.

Although the Russian authorities considered, in the light of a further autopsy that was carried out following the repatriation of the body to Russia, that the verdict of the inquest was unsatisfactory,

The women told him that she had left a note in Russian saying that she was tired and wanted to return to Russia.

    For relevant case-law of the CJEU on the conditions for preliminary rulings, see Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v.

    According to the applicant, in 1995 he signed a contract with a Russian football club as a football player, obtained a Russian visa and settled in Russia.

The impugned ruling concerned only the applicant’s detention pending trial. Therefore, an appeal directed against that ruling would have been limited to matters of detention.

court for further consideration [or quash the ruling and remit the case for further consideration to the Higher Commercial Court]; 3)     quash the resolution [or ruling] and nullify the proceedings

The ruling was based on the 2007 Federal Act on Enforcement Proceedings (sections 6, 14, 30, 64, 67 and 68) and the 1996 Federal Act on Leaving and Entering the Russian Federation (Procedures) (section