These judicial proceedings are as relevant and as important as when the Australian application was filed.

2.11 On 17 December 2002, a new application for humanitarian residence permits was filed.

The author subsequently filed a new application for reconsideration and it too was rejected.

It found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by Liechtenstein.

The author filed an application for review of that decision, an application that was rejected by the court on 7 July 1998.

Lastly, the authors filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected in October 1998 as being devoid of substance.

On 25 November 1996, the court rejected an application for review filed by the author.

2.2 The author filed an application for judicial review and annulment with the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, convening as a military chamber.

The author, who filed his application in 1992, became a Czech citizen on 20 May 1993.

The father filed a cross application for orders that the child live with him in Australia.

On 30 May 2002, the authors filed an application in the Central Court of Minsk seeking an order to direct the C.R.N. to determine their application.

The application is filed with the competent district Police Force directorate, which issued the firearm permit or the firearm licence.

At the time he filed that application, the author was no longer in Valladolid but in the Puerto I prison, Cádiz.

The claimant also filed an application for an order requesting that funds of the joint venture be frozen at a Canadian Bank.

Proceedings were instituted on 18 November 2004 by an application filed on behalf of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines against Guinea Bissau.

When his complaint was rejected at the lower court and appeal levels, the author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court.

2.2 On 10 May 2001, the authors filed an application with the Committee on Religions and Nationalities ( the C.R.N. ), seeking the registration of the seven Krishna communities in Belarus as a religious association.

On 14 April 2003, they filed an application for supervisory review in the Supreme Court of Belarus this was dismissed on 30 May 2003.

2.8 On 18 May 1999, the author filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, in which he complained about the above events.

On 21 December 2002, the authors filed an application for supervisory review with the President of the Minsk City Court this was dismissed on 17 February 2003.

Several indictments filed during 2004 included organized crime offences as well as trafficking offences.

In September 2002, the complainant filed a new application with the Aliens Appeals Board in which he asserted that an enforcement of the expulsion order would be inhumane.

3. goods for which export duties have been paid fail to be exported due to certain reasons, and an application has been filed for customs declaration back into the country.

Subsequently, the author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, alleging, among other arguments, the failure of the Provincial High Court to state the grounds for its decision.

Her appeal was ultimately dismissed as having been filed outside the statutory deadline.

2.4 On 10 July 1996, the first author filed an application for amparo on his own behalf, and not representing the second author, before the second division of the Constitutional Court.

2.2 The author filed an application with the Supreme Court for judicial review and annulment, alleging violation of his right to the presumption of innocence and errors in the appraisal of evidence.

The author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 25 October 1999 on the grounds that the court of first instance had already resolved the matter.

2.4 Although the Statute required the authors' application to be determined within one month, a period of over a year elapsed after the documents were initially filed, without any decision from the C.R.N.

4.3 The State party argues that the communication is also inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, because the author had already filed an application with the European Court.

2.4 On 18 December 1995, Waldemar filed his first motion to replace the author as liquidator.

He states that four doctors have diagnosed him with psychological trauma caused by the above events, but that his fundamental rights and request for compensation application filed on 13 March 2003 has been postponed constantly.

Briefs in reply will now be filed within 10 days as compared to a previous 15 days.

The notice once indicated that the setup of Lanhai Bank should be filed with the CBRC for approval, and there may be adjustments in the process of application, examination and approval, which leads to uncertainties and risks.

No inter State communication under article 41 of the Covenant had been filed as at 2 August 2005.

The author filed a counter claim.

Just as the scope of application of the two doctrines is different, so is their mode of application.

When his daughter Maria (born on 3 March 1991) started to attend Lesterud School in Bærum in the autumn of 1997, an application for full exemption from the CKREE subject was filed on her behalf, which was rejected.

2.10 With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author recalls that the application for retention of citizenship was filed in November 1945, and that efforts to have the proceedings completed were resumed in January 1995.

Complaints regarding detention of individuals are filed

In view of the expiration of the 72 hours of detention period at 9 00 a.m. on August 7 in Maritime Bureau, the victims of relatives filed a deposit insurance application to the court in the morning of August 7.

On the same day, his lawyer filed an application for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, challenging the lawfulness of the author's arrest and detention, which was neither acknowledged, nor assigned to a judge or heard by the Angolan courts.

Iraq asserts that this claim unit should be rejected as a claim filed after the expiry of the applicable deadline.

In August 1998, the author filed a motion for judicial review in the Prague High Court, as well as a complaint in the Constitutional Court.

8.5 However, the European Court was able to examine the same matter only insofar as the substantive rights protected under the European Convention converge with those protected under the Covenant, and to the extent that the events complained occurred prior to 18 May 1999, when the author filed his application with the European Court.