On 19 December 1991 the Court of Appeal quashed the County Administrative Board’s order of 28 March 1991 requiring the grandparents to comply with the District Court’s provisional order of

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le dix-huit janvier deux mille six, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur

  Court's jurisdiction to examine the Government's preliminary objections Court saw no reason, as matters stood, to abandon a line of case-law which had been followed constantly for over twenty years

End: Court of Cassation's noting the applicant's withdrawal of his action following a friendly settlement. Result: more than six years and eight months. B.

    After several remittals, by the judgments of the Split Municipal Court of 6   February 2007 and 27 January 2010, modified by the judgments of the Split County Court of 11 September 2009

» du 7 septembre 2011, rendue entre les mêmes parties, aux motifs que « les assureurs ont saisi la High Court, sans l'informer de la procédure en cours en France, et alors qu'ils avaient connaissance

End: date on which the Ankara Second Assize Court's judgment became final.

the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions).

The Supreme Court also referred to the Court’s judgment in Aune v. Norway , no. 52502/07, 28 October 2010. 24.

However, since the Zagreb Municipal Court’s judgments of 24 June 1993 as well as the Zagreb County Court’s judgment of 13 April 1993 were quashed by the Supreme Court on 2 September 1998, on 26 January

    On 2 February 2010 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the Zagreb County Court’s judgment, seeking a more severe sentence. 14.

In 2020 the Rijeka County Court upheld that judgment. It noted that the applicant’s behaviour had been entirely inappropriate, but that it had not warranted a summary dismissal.

On 22 November 2018 the High Court ( lagmannsrett ) refused the parents – the applicant and the child’s mother – leave to appeal against the City Court’s judgment.

COUR D'APPEL DE LYON Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon Cabinet de Coralie COUSTY N° RG 26/01333 - N° Portalis DB2H-W-B7K-4CUE - Isolement Monsieur [I] [H] né le 16 Février 1994 à [Localité 1] ORDONNANCE

En statuant ainsi, la cour d'appel a violé les textes susvisés. Et sur le troisième moyen, pris en sa première branche Enoncé du moyen 24.

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par : 1 / la société Traction Michel Fréjaville, société anonyme, dont le siège

du 2 août 1990 (pièce n° 30), sur la circonstance que son avocat n'aurait pas été autorisé par Mme [H] à transmettre ce courrier à l'autre partie, cependant que, dans ledit courrier Mme [H] écrivait à

On 6 February 2008 the Harju County Court ( maakohus ) convicted the applicants as charged.

According to the applicant, the County Court’s error was an obvious one, but that court had failed to rectify it even after her intervention.