On 3 March 2016 the applicant brought a claim against her employer alleging that the severance allowance had been calculated wrongly and that the sum she received had been by UAH 600.01 (

On 9 June 2010 the Sumy Circuit Administrative Court rejected his claim due to its lack of competence to examine issues related to executiOn of sentences.

    The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 5 since their rights had been restored following the payment

Furthermore, the legal framework provides for the possibility for plaintiffs such as the applicant to join a claim for compensation to the criminal proceedings or to lodge a separate claim in that regard

  They submit that she accepted a voluntary settlement of £2,000 in satisfaction of her claim.

accusation and the numerous and repeated changes in its cause, and in view of the lengthy period which had elapsed between the committal for trial and the trial (more than three and a half years) compared

Following an appeal by the company, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claims, noting in particular that, unless otherwise provided, the rights conferred by an earlier collective agreement could

He stressed that his own individual interests were of minor importance compared to the general interests to preserve the park.

The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject

In particular, they noted that the applicant had not lodged a civil claim seeking damages for the alleged failure to provide him with the relevant medical treatment.

On 7 March 2001, the Labour Court rejected the Industries’ claims.   2.

A further distinguishing feature of hyperlinks, compared to acts of dissemination of information, was that the person referring to information through a hyperlink did not exercise control over the content

Only the eleventh applicant had his claim dismissed at both levels.

On 18 July 2002 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim, refusing him leave to appeal on points of law.

for maintenance pending divorce ( Trennungsunterhalt ) compared with post-marriage maintenance ( nachehelicher Unterhalt ); an amount of EUR 20,000 was related to higher claims for maintenance due to

    The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. 37.

Consequently, the Court dismisses the applicants’ claim for future losses, without prejudice to any future claims they may have (see, mutatis mutandis , Amato Gauci , cited above, § 80). B.

  Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (De Santa, Abenavoli and Nicodemo). 3.   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (Lapalorcia). B.

In an order of 23 April 1999 the judge found that the bondholders’ claims were valid in theory.

les observations de la société civile professionnelle ROGER et SEVAUX, de la société civile professionnelle BORE et SALVE de BRUNETON, avocats en la Cour, et les conclusions de Mme l'avocat général COMMARET