The court also separated the applicant and her husband. By a ruling of 22 March 2012, the Kaunas Regional Court, in written proceedings, upheld the lower court’s decision.

    On 20 July 1997 she brought proceedings before the Madan District Court against her five siblings for the division of a piece of real property.

en matière de Rétentions Administratives des Etrangers Nous, Perrine CHAIGNE, conseillère à la cour d'appel de Lyon, déléguée par ordonnance de madame la première présidente de ladite Cour en date

The trial court’s decision as regards a request for release is subject to appeal to the higher court (Article 344 § 3).

The Court of Cassation held a hearing on 12 July 2005. 21.     On 26 December 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the Land Registry Court’s judgment. 22.

MF COUR DE CASSATION ______________________ Audience publique du 31 mars 2016 Cassation M.

In a judgment of 4 November 1948 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and proceeded to examine the case on the merits.

Pierre, contre l'arrêt de la cour d'appel de TOULOUSE, chambre correctionnelle, en date du 28 avril 1999, qui l'a condamné à 1 578 amendes de 250 francs chacune pour infractions à la réglementation

On 23 October 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court upheld the order for payment. The defendant lodged an appeal. On 26 April 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal reversed the Regional Court's judgment.

par mise à disposition au greffe) N° RG : 2026001030 Procédure n° 2025J5 — SAS CLINIQUE DE CHATELLERAULT COMPOSITION DU TRIBUNAL Président : Monsieur Olivier BOIJOUX, Président Juges : Monsieur Pierre-Emmanuel

court of appeal – the Supreme Court of Russia – on 30   October 2002.

The case was thus remitted before the Prahova County Court, which rendered its judgment on 25 May 2006, dismissing the appeal.

en considération les deux pièces litigieuses, il n'en demeure pas moins qu'en les produisant, M.

By judgment of 27 July 1999 the District Court, having taken additional evidence in accordance with the Regional Court’s instruction, dismissed the applicant’s action for damages.

La personne que j'avais eu au téléphone m'a ensuite déclaré qu'elle allait m'envoyer un coursier afin de récupérer ma carte bancaire qui devait être " décapsulée ".

In the Court’s view the applicants’ contention about inadequate reasoning of that court as to the question of criminal liability does not raise an issue under the Article   10.

Lastly, he submitted copies of the aforementioned pieces of evidence before the domestic courts. 10.

    In the same judgment the Constitutional Court further found that the Supreme Court’s view, that land expropriated under Ordinance 15/1959 could not be restored under Law no.

    On 1 November 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the Erzurum Assize Court’s judgment. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 25.