As to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the District Court noted that thirteen counts of his fifteen injuries were due to the struggle in the context of his arrest, whereas the cause for the

The court of appeal considered that even though the sentencing court’s order for the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric hospital was the result of an erroneous legal qualification, that qualification

The case was referred to the court of first instance for a new hearing (the Economic Court of Lougansk, former “arbitration court”). The outcome of these proceedings is awaited.

  Therein, the Regional Court found the applicant guilty on most counts stated in the bill of indictment of 30 November 1981.

    On 31   March 2011 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dispensed with an oral hearing, without explaining that decision. It upheld the lower court’s judgment in full.

    On 23 July 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Tsentralnyy Court”) convicted the applicant of several counts of fraud and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment with

On an unspecified date the Szczecin Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for reconsideration.

In the course of the second round of the appellate proceedings, the applicant supplemented his pleadings by filing the court decision in K.’s case, which had become final by that time.

On 15   May 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya examined the Prosecutor’s appeal against the District Court’s decision and discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant

    On 29 January 2013 the Amsterdam Regional Court convicted the applicant of complicity in soliciting murder, multiple counts of complicity in attempted murder, multiple counts of complicity

on three counts of premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of each count.

        On 15 March 1989 the Bavarian Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law against the Regional Court's judgment of 29 July 1988.

Ils demandent à la cour de déclarer irrecevable la saisine de la cour de renvoi.

Dans ses dernières conclusions en date du 9 janvier 2019, la société Tech'Map demande à la cour de constater que la cour n'est saisie d'aucune demande à son encontre ni au titre de l'appel principal de

Au cours de ce même mois d’avril, le cabinet d’architecte a travaillé sur le projet de construction à neuf avec l’option d’habitation et l’option hôtel et a élaboré des plans ainsi qu’un tableau récapitulatif

Arrêt de la Cour (deuxième chambre) du 20 juin 1985.#Maurice Pauvert contre Cour des comptes des Communautés européennes.#Fonctionnaires - Promotion - Confiance légitime.#Affaire 228/84.

La cour déclare en conséquence Mr [B] recevable en sa demande en paiement d'heures supplémentaires.

- SFR Société INTELCIA SERVICE CLIENT Société TELEPERFORMANCE FRANCE APPEL D'UNE DÉCISION DU : Conseil de Prud'hommes - Formation de départage de LYON du 15 Mars 2018 RG : 12/00500 COUR

- N° Portalis 35L7-V-B7D-CA2QF Sur renvoi après un arrêt de la Cour de Cassation prononcé le 02 Octobre 2019 (n° 771 FS-P+B+R) emportant cassation partielle d'un arrêt rendu par la cour d'appel de

MPA/ND Numéro 20/03272 COUR D'APPEL DE PAU 2ème CH - Section 1 ARRET DU 19/11/2020 Dossier : N° RG 18/01024 - N° Portalis DBVV-V-B7C-G3R7 Nature affaire : Autres actions