The Regional Court refused the motion. Its decision read as follows: “...

    On 22 April 1999 the proceedings were stayed upon the applicants' motion. 37.     On 18 April 2002 the applicants lodged a motion for the proceedings to be resumed.

    By a decision of 28 February 2006 the Zagreb Regional Office declared the second applicant’s motion inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.

    On 18 January 1995 a hearing was held at which the applicant maintained his motion of 5 December 1994.

1 or a motion for conditional discontinuance of proceedings, shall be deemed to be an accused ( oskarżony ). §   3.

There was no proper basis upon which he could have acceded to the motion made to him.

Her motion to be granted legal aid lodged on 12   February 1997 interrupted the period of limitation. Her claim was therefore not time-barred. ii.

    The District Court decided to grant the investigator’s motion.

By a decision of 19 October 1995 the Gdynia District Court dismissed the mother’s motion that the applicant be divested of his parental rights, and the applicant’s motion that the child reside permanently

    On 10 August 1996 the applicant filed a motion with the court, challenging the impartiality of the expert.

It rejected all the motions lodged by the second applicant in the course of the trial, including those to exclude from evidence the pre-trial statements of witnesses taken during their military confinement

By a decision of the same day the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s motion holding that contrary to the applicant’s submissions there remained a strong suspicion that he had committed the crimes.

for the resumption of the investigation, a repeated motion for resumption on the same ground shall not be allowed.”

Moreover, they had not introduced a motion under section 20 of the Administrative Procedure Act which would have been a judicial remedy capable of redressing their grievances. 12.

      On 17 September 1980 M.T. lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court, claiming dissolution of a co-ownership which he shared with the applicant.

At the hearing held on this day the applicant filed a motion alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of experts co-operating with the Warsaw Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology.

The District Court refused the motion finding the requested evidence irrelevant.

imperative obligation and that, according to the law, if there had been no request for the extension of the time-limit, the Court of Appeal had been under a duty to dismiss the late appeal on its own motion

    On 20   May 1994 the applicants filed a motion for annulment of the 1949 decision. 7.