The applicant appealed against this decision before the regional administrative court, which ordered that its execution be stayed. An appeal was lodged against the court’s decision.

On 26 November 2012 the District Court delivered the judgment granting the divorce.

On 9 January 2002 the Court of Appeal granted the Regional Court's application. The applicant appealed against that decision.

The detention order was upheld on appeal on 16 July 2007 with the City Court fully endorsing the District Court’s reasoning. 4.

    On 30 April 2013, the Prague Municipal Court ( Městský soud v   Praze ) reversed the first-instance court’s judgment in relation to the decision to institute criminal proceedings and

The parties were also invited to produce any further evidence on which they wished to rely before the Court and make comments on the case in the light of the Court’s judgments in El-Masri (see El-Masri

    On 24 May 2017 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment with respect to the applicant’s conviction for deriving financial gain from prostitution, and quashed it with respect

In course of the divorce proceedings, on 30 September 2008 the Municipal Court heard evidence from the applicant, D., and the Centre.

DE FRANCE REJETANT LA DEMANDE DU REPRESENTANT DU SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES PROPRIETAIRES DE TROTTEURS D'INSTITUER DES EPREUVES DE COURSE DE TROT SUPPLEMENTAIRES ; VU LA LOI DU 2 JUIN 1891, MODIFIEE LE 16

1991 par la cour d'appel de Montpellier (chambre sociale), au profit de l'O.G.E.C.

sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)11 concerning the judgment of the European Court

Elle a renvoyé, sur ces points, la cause et les parties devant la cour d'appel de TOULOUSE qui a été saisie par déclaration de M.

Judgment of the Court of 6 October 1982.#Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Corte suprema di Cassazione - Italy.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 1983.#Paola Piscitello v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Corte suprema di Cassazione - Italy.

court.

the domestic courts’ refusal to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of the EU Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA. [4] See, in particular, the Audiencia

, la cour d'appel n'a pas donné de base légale à sa décision.

The main reason why the domestic courts had refused to appoint the counsel chosen by the applicant was that he was not practising within the court’s jurisdiction.

, la cour d'appel a violé les articles 2224 du code civil et L. 1471-1 du code du travail. » 6.

d'assises, le procureur général près la cour d'appel ne peut saisir la chambre criminelle que s'il demande la désignation d'une cour d'assises située en dehors du ressort de ladite cour d'appel ; Attendu