On 23 January 1995 the expert submitted her report. On 20 March 1995 the District Office informed the applicant that he could make his observations on the report.

    On 29 March and on 4 April 2002 the Regional Court requested the expert to submit her opinion. On 10 April 2002 the expert filed her opinion. 38.

He also sent a letter to the President of the Court of Appeal.

Arrest van het Hof (Vierde kamer) van 25 april 2013.#Rose Marie Bark tegen Galileo Joint Undertaking.#Verzoek van het Hof van Cassatie om een prejudiciële beslissing.

Arrest van het Hof (Derde kamer) van 14 juli 1994.#Milchwerke Köln/Wuppertal eG tegen Hauptzollamt Köln-Rheinau.#Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing: Finanzgericht Düsseldorf - Duitsland.

Arrest van het Hof (Derde kamer) van 13 juli 1995.#Hengst Import BV tegen Anna Maria Campese.#Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing: Arrondissementsrechtbank Zwolle - Nederland.

Beschikking van de president van het Hof van 7 maart 1995.#Transacciones Marítimas SA (TRAMASA), Makuspesca SA en Recursos Marinos SA tegen Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen.

Beschikking van de president van het Gerecht van 14 februari 2023.#Carlos Miguel Ferreira de Macedo Silva tegen Europees Grens- en kustwachtagentschap.

conviction by a court of appeal, confirmed by the Cour de cassation, for handling the fruits of a breach of professional confidence in that they had published photocopies of the tax assessments of the head

had not had access to a tribunal for the protection of his professional reputation, that he had not had access to a remedy before a national authority and that he had been discriminated against on account

The courts found that there had been inexcusable negligence by her employer.

The review carried out by the HEC consisted in verifying whether the specific conditions laid down by the legislature had been fulfilled by the applicant party, on the basis of concrete facts.

He claims that while in detention he became ill with chronic cholecystitis, chronic hepatitis, bronchitis and tuberculosis. 4.

He also sought the sum of FRF 350,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

The court further held that, even assuming that the buildings in question had existed, the applicant could not claim any compensation for their demolition as he had no legitimate property rights (the right

Arrest van het Hof (Vierde kamer) van 12 januari 2023.#D.V. tegen M.A.#Verzoek van de Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas om een prejudiciële beslissing.

On 21 February 2020 the medical board composed of the Institute’s deputy head, the head of a medical department, a head of a medical unit and three doctors, granted the application.

    On 9   May and 5   September   2000 the court held hearings.