Ont été entendus au cours de l’audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Permingeat, premier conseiller ; - les conclusions de Mme Coutarel, rapporteur public ; - et les observations de Mme B..., représentant

It therefore rejects this claim. C. Mr. Carne 15.    In 1976, Mr.

However, if the claim is rejected, the claimant still has the possibility to institute civil proceedings before the courts.

On 10 June 1991 he submitted a claim for a service pension.

    On 5 December 2013 the Ochakiv Local Court of the Mykolaiv Region (“the local court”) rejected the prosecutor’s claim.

    The Council of Ministers rejected the applicant companies’ claim on 20   December 2022.

On 19   November 1999 ATE requested a hearing on the two actions relating to the principal claims.

Armed clashes increased by 14 per cent in the first four months of the year compared with the same period in 2015 and were higher for each month compared with previous years.

The applicant subsequently withdrew his remaining claims before the District Court.

    On 27 June 2000 the insurance company gave two decisions regarding the applicant's further insurance claims.

ARRÊT Contradictoire, Prononcé par mise à disposition au greffe le 16 Mai 2019, Signé par Monsieur Olivier GOURSAUD, Président et Madame Charlotte COMBARET, greffier auquel la minute de la décision

On 10 August 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg accepted the plaintiff’s claims in full.

In June 2003, the divisional court dismissed the claim. Mr Clift’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the court of appeal and, in December 2006, by the House of Lords.

Her claim was refused, J. having been found to have acted in good faith, as he had embarked on the treatment on the basis that his relationship with Ms Evans would continue.

    The Government contested this claim. 33.

    On 3 February 2005 the court pronounced its judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part. Both parties appealed. 14.

In support of this claim the applicants presented a time sheet and a contract for legal representation. 37.     The Government contested the claims.

It accordingly remains to be examined whether the applicants could have had any “legitimate expectation” of realising their claim to the property under German law.

On 18 May 2006 the Maribor Labour Court rejected these applicants’ claims on the ground that they had not pursued their claims in the bankruptcy proceedings and had thereby lost legal interest for the