This decision was upheld by the High Court on 29 December 1993.

    On 1 December 2004 the Prague High Court ( vrchní soud , “the High Court”) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the Plzeň Regional Court.

       Civil proceedings in the High Court   14.

A chamber of the High Court in Belgrade upheld that decision on 21 March 2014. 12 .

The second applicant appealed to the High Court. c. The first and second applicants' appeals to the High Court 25 . The first and second applicants' appeals were heard together.

    The case was referred to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”).

#Αίτηση για την έκδοση προδικαστικής αποφάσεως: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο.#Νομισματικά εξισωτικά ποσά.#Υπόθεση 84/81.

. # Demande de décision préjudicielle: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - Royaume-Uni. # Montants compensatoires monétaires. # Affaire 84/81.

. # Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - Verenigd Koninkrijk. # Zaak 41-77.

. # Meroni & Co. and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. # Joined cases 14, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26 and 27-60 and 1-61.

. # Ersuchen um Vorabentscheidung: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - Vereinigtes Königreich. # Fischerei - Lizenzen - Bedingungen. # Rechtssache C-216/87.

Having taken the loan at a rate higher than 180, the applicant was not eligible for the early repayment scheme.

He appealed to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that although the relevant practice direction on appeals allowed certain healthcare professionals (such as doctors, dentists and

    On 24 June 2004 the High Court questioned N.D.

On 3 July 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court established that the disciplinary proceedings had been time-barred and therefore upheld Mrs   N.N.’s appeal.

On 14 September 2019 the Warsaw High Disciplinary Court of the Bar dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

The High Court noted the tax surcharge imposed in April 2000 and also observed that the applicant had appealed against that decision and that the appeal had not yet been decided.

The President of the immediately higher court or the panel may dismiss the appeal as unfounded and uphold the first-instance decision or reverse [that] decision.”

The first, lodged against the Debrecen High Court, was dismissed by the Nyíregyháza High Court.