de communication des documents suivants le concernant : 1) le bordereau d’envoi du 2 mars 2008 ; 2) le courrier du 28 janvier 2008 ; 3) le courrier du 29 avril 2009 n° 551/PM/2009 ; 4) l'arrêté n° 2009

    On 20 May 2010 the Wrocław Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) partly amended the lower court’s judgment and sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. 15.

The applicant company sought to appeal against the High Court’s procedure and judgment to the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ).

course of court proceedings, to the degree making the announcement of the judgment impossible”). 17.

Monsieur X X, en sa qualité de X, a saisi la commission d'accès aux documents administratifs, par courrier enregistré à son secrétariat le 16 mars 2015, à la suite du refus opposé par le maire de Woustviller

    The applicant served as a Constitutional Court judge from 2003. In 2013 he was appointed to the Supreme Court and served as its President. 3.

MOTIFS DE L'ARRÊT Au regard des dispositions des articles L653-5 et L653-8 du code de commerce le ministère public, devant la cour d'appel, reproche deux fautes à M.

2001, présenté par le MINISTRE DE L'EDUCATION NATIONALE ; le MINISTRE DE L'EDUCATION NATIONALE demande au Conseil d'Etat : 1°) d'annuler sans renvoi l'arrêt en date du 29 décembre 2000 par lequel la cour

by those judgments, if need be before a court and ultimately before the Constitutional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that tips included in cheque or credit card payments should count against the minimum remuneration requirement, notwithstanding the customers’ intention.

in the District Court and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court considered that the Court of Appeal had not sufficiently established the facts which had led it to the conclusion – which ran counter to the conclusions reached by all other courts before

Competition Council’s decision of 16 June 1994 and the court’s decision of 30 November 1995, it had not become evident that the court had based itself on material in respect of which Neste had not been

The inadmissibility decisions adopted by the Court were, however, confirmed and the requests to reopen the cases were dismissed.

These considerations led the courts to assume that the applicant, if released, might obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.

Court had taken that factor into account in dismissing the amparo appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case. The judge summoned the applicant to appear in court as a suspect.

Subsequently, she applied to the Constitutional Court complaining of a violation of her right to property on account of the loss in value of her receivables during the course of the proceedings, which

the Court’s request for observations and just satisfaction claims.

The applicant did not provide the Court with any new contact information which could have allowed the Court to conduct further proceedings.