Arrest van het Hof (Tweede kamer) van 9 november 1989.#Theodoros Katsoufros tegen Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie.#Zaak C-55/88.

Beschikking van de president van het Hof van 11 maart 1997.#Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen tegen Groot-Hertogdom Luxemburg.#Doorhaling.#Zaak C-46/95.

    On 2   April   1996 the court held a hearing. At the next hearing held on 23   July   1996 the applicant modified his claim.

On those days he did not have his daily walk.

According to the applicant, he requested access to his lawyer after he was informed that he would be arrested.

A judge can only be held criminally liable for crimes committed intentionally in the performance of his or her duties ...”

The fact that he asked for adjournments to prepare his defence cannot be held against him. 32.

In particular, he submitted that following his complaints to head of colony Mr N., on 17 July 2007 he was invited for a meeting with head of the security unit Mr M and prison officers Mr L. and Mr Mi.

Arrest van het Gerecht van eerste aanleg (Tweede kamer) van 28 april 1994.#All Weather Sports Benelux BV tegen Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen.

. # Belasting op het verbruik van tabaksfabrikaten - Richtlijn 79/32/EEG - Sigaretten - Rooktabak - Begrip - Niet-contractuele aansprakelijkheid van een lidstaat wegens schending van het gemeenschapsrecht

Arrest van het Hof (Eerste kamer) van 4 juli 1990.#Vleeswarenbedrijf Roermond BV e.a. tegen Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees.

    On 6 July 2006 the Head of the Supreme Court’s Labour-Law Collegium rejected the applicant’s complaint.

He had not been able to obtain an effective review of the disciplinary decision, although he had been found guilty of a breach of his duties as an enforcement officer as set out in the statutory regulations

They had been clearly instructed to avoid blows to the head and only to use weapons other than tear gas grenades, rifle butts and batons as a last resort.

It further held that the applicant had taken part in the organisation of the demonstration at issue, bearing in mind that he had been the Vice ‑ President of the Şanlıurfa branch of the BDP and

She also said that her private life concerned her alone and that even I could not interfere with her style of dress or her choice to wear the headscarf.

At the next hearing held on 16 February 2005 he was not present. 26.

Regarding her claims under the head of non-pecuniary damage and lack of enjoyment of the property, the Court decided unanimously to award her EUR   3,000 in respect of all heads of damage taken together