On 1 August 2008, the High Court (Mr Justice Grigson) rejected the applicant’s application.

       The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 30 May 1996.

        Bien que la High Court n'ait pas ouï M.

another result, the High Court upholds the decision."

In a final judgment of 14 March 2003 (“the outstanding judgment”) the High Court of Cassation and Justice (hereinafter “the High Court”) upheld the decision given by the appellate court. 5 .

A l’issue d’une audience à laquelle le requérant fut représenté par un avocat, la High Court refusa à l’intéressé l’autorisation de solliciter un contrôle juridictionnel.

  1 on account of the High Court having unfairly dismissed its claims.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

Resolution DH (99) 680 of 6 October 1999, in which, inter alia , the Committee of Ministers strongly urged Turkey to pay the just satisfaction awarded in this case so as to ensure that Turkey, as a High

On 4 and 5 April 1995 the application for judicial review was heard by the High Court and the High Court judge reserved judgment.

    On 10 November 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine adopted another decision, the relevant part of which read as follows: “When the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine received

The High Court, consisting of the professional judges, considered the claim the next day.

Judicial Council or High Prosecutorial Council, High Inspector of Justice or Prosecutor General. 16.

In doing so, the court rejected the applicant’s argument that under the investment contract of 2003, as confirmed by the final decision of Higher Specialized Court in 2010, he had the title to the disputed

The decree was issued on the basis of the High Council of Justice’s (“the HCJ”) decision of 5 November 2015 finding that the applicant had committed a “breach of oath” when authorising the arrest of a

The applicants were subsequently charged before the High Court, convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 6 to 16 years.

The prosecutor’s claim was allowed in full by the judgment of the Chernivtsi Region Commercial Court of 12   January 2012 and ultimately upheld by the final decision of the Higher Commercial Court

That decision was overturned by the High Court, which refused the applicant access as it considered this to be the course most favourable to the children’s development and justified by their best interest

Their applications concern the criminal proceedings for abuse of office entailing unlawful advantages for them or others opened against them and other high-ranking employees of the above-mentioned Mayor

The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed on 11 October 2018 by the Higher Court in Novi Pazar.