On 6 March 2013 the District Court granted the applicant company’s claim and rejected the provider’s counter-claim.

Court at the applicant's request. 14.

In his pleadings of 10 February 1997 submitted to the Regional Court in the course of the proceedings against company X the applicant complained that the District Court’s order concerning his statement

Court on 4 April 2008.

theft, including twenty-seven counts of theft of cars, as well as of two counts of fraud.

On 24 November 1998 the court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted of one count of forgery and appropriation of a car and acquitted of handling stolen cars and of one count of forgery.

In that letter, the Court of Appeal had informed the applicant of the contents of the Regional Court’s decision and of the fact that it had been served on his counsel.

On 13 January 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court pronounced its judgment. It convicted the applicant as indicted, except for the count alleging the murder of which he was acquitted.

    On 15 December 1994 the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court's decisions of 20 September 1993 concerning the forum and referred the counter-claims back to the Tampere District Court

The domestic courts allegedly departed from the Constitutional Court’s previous established case-law (e.g. II. ÚS 1920/20 of 25   January   2021; I. ÚS 1975/20 of 23   March 2021; III.

    On 10 June 2011, following the Supreme Court’s judgment overturning the lower courts’ judgments in respect of the applicant and dismissing her claim, the State lodged a counter-enforcement

  In each case, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Composition of the Court of Appeal 19.

Decision 25.8.2015 [Section V] Article 6 Constitutional proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal by the Cour de cassation to refer questions to the Constitutional Council for a preliminary ruling

The court stated that it would schedule a hearing after the employer lodged its counter-claim. 10.

    On 16 March 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) upheld the District Court’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s action and dismissed the defendant’s counter-action.

to a court.

During the proceedings she unsuccessfully challenged the judge and the court, claiming that they lacked impartiality as the defendant company had carried out work in the court's new building free of charge

The applicant complained before the Court of the length of the proceedings before the compensation commission, the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court.

, devant la Cour composée de : C.