In particular, he complains about assessment of evidence by the trial court and alleges that the court accepted inadmissible evidence and collected certain evidence of its own motion.

    Civil proceedings for establishing an easement On 2 April 1996 the applicant lodged a motion with the Jasło District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) for the establishment of an easement ( ustanowienie

    On 25 April 2008 and again on 26 June 2008 the District Court also rejected the applicant's motion for bias. The latter decision was served upon the applicant on 18 July 2008.

On 12 October 2001 the president ( Vorsteher ) of the Linz Land District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion of bias against V.

Moreover, he filed two motions for a transfer of the case to another court. In addition, about 40 hearings have been adjourned due to the applicant’s requests.

    On 17 December 1999 and 26 May 2000 the District Court granted the prosecutor's motions, the first one supported and the second one opposed by the applicant, to remit the case for additional

An application for review of the court decisions shall be lodged within three months from the date of passing the judgment in relation to which the motion for revision was made, or from the date of passing

    Proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law and motion to reinstate the case 22.

  These motions, made personally by the applicant at twelve different court sessions, were all rejected.

The court must examine each motion filed and hear the parties. The court shall grant the motion, if the circumstances which it seeks to disclose may be significant for the case.

According to Article 136, detention on remand and bail are imposed only by a court decision upon the investigator's or the prosecutor's motion or of the court's own motion during the court examination

    On 19 February 2010 and on 26 May 2010 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the first applicant’s motions. 50.

It seems that these motions were not dealt with at that time.

The court held that as the applicant’s motion for A.E. to withdraw was in fact based on A.E.’s judicial position not being established in accordance with the law, such a motion could not be appealed to

On 17 July 1996 the applicants issued two motions.

On 18 March 1996 she lodged a motion with the District Court to have her full parental rights restored.

Procédure devant la cour : Par une requête, enregistrée le 15 mars 2022, la SAS Rolande du Dreuilh Créations, représentée par Me Monpion, demande à la cour : 1°) d'annuler cette ordonnance du président

The applicant’s lawyer registered a formal objection to the dismissal of those motions. 18.

The court dismissed J.V.’s motion that the applicant be divested of his parental rights, and the applicant’s motion that the child reside permanently with him.