The applicant challenged the expulsion order as arbitrary.

She then challenged her removal from office, which was confirmed by the National Legal Service Council in 2004, after a hearing in which she had taken part.

  The applicants challenged the above-mentioned decision.

The first applicant challenged the first fine before the Transdniestrian “authorities”, but his appeal was rejected.

On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the police report before the domestic courts.

Proceedings to challenge the bailiff’s ruling of 19 January 2018 On 14 February 2018 the applicant challenged in court the bailiff’s ruling of 19 January 2018 imposing a travel ban.

The applicant subsequently challenged the two members of the division who had ordered his detention pending trial and were also due to sit on the bench that would decide the merits of the case.

He had requested the lifting of the measure of detention in the institution for mentally-ill offenders, which ran parallel to his prison sentence but could be challenged independently by virtue of the

MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the principle of equality of arms and access to a court in judicial proceedings before tax courts, instituted by the applicant to challenge

The applicant challenged the order before the domestic courts. She reiterated the arguments raised before the prosecutor’s office.

At the applicant's trial, his lawyer unsuccessfully challenged the admissibility of the covert recordings and of the evidence from H. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

    In May 2011 the applicant challenged the impounding in the civil proceedings.

The applicant challenged that decision.

The applicant's lawyer challenged this decision before a panel of three judges of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be brought before a judge.

    It does not appear from the materials of the case that upon learning the above the applicant company challenged the State Registration Chamber’s decision to terminate its registration or

       A court judgment establishing paternity over a child born out of wedlock can be challenged by the father with an action for re-opening of proceedings under Sections 529

influe pas notablement sur la commercialité, étant précisé qu'une autre boulangerie située, comme les lieux loués, à proximité d'un des entrées du jardin, profite également de ces nouveaux chalands

Accordingly it can be challenged by judicial review and perhaps by way of defence in proceedings such as the present. ...

La commission en prend note mais observe que l'arrêté joint au recours de Maître X est un arrêté affectant sa cliente à l'UEAJ de Châlon-sur-Saône.