In the appeal to the Supreme Court, his claim was similarly dismissed.

This claim was rejected by the court, but accepted by the Court of Appeal.

The Utrecht Regional Court declared the author's counter claim inadmissible.

The author's claim was thereafter dismissed and following the rejection of his claim, the author filed four successive motions in the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the court adjudicated the claim for damages based on the promissory estoppel theory in conformity with the Hungarian Civil Code and rejected the claim.

In this connection, the representative stated that Mr. Adam had failed to file a claim for restitution in the court.

Maybe you've got a claim in small claims court for your lost pair of pants for 100, but not in a court of general jurisdiction for millions of dollars.

And to what court of law would my son and I take our claim?

2. A State intervening to present a claim in a proceeding before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any counterclaim arising out of the same legal relationship or facts as the claim presented by the State.

Since the sole cause of the claim was the plaintiff's misconduct during the performance, the Court concluded that it would be manifestly unfair to compel the respondent to face alone a refund claim before the Supreme Court.

On 10 July 1995, the claim was dismissed by Murcia court of first instance No. 3.

2.3 Royal filed a claim in the Utrecht Regional Court against the author and VVAA for compensation for the remaining damages.

3. A State making a counterclaim in a proceeding instituted against it before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of the principal claim.

Moreover, their claim regarding the IG Farben shares was not examined by the European Court at all.

On that basis, the court upheld the claim for compensation submitted by the consignee apos s insurers.

As to the claim that he failed to exhaust domestic remedies in his claim against individual judges, the author notes that such a claim would have been futile, since he had already failed to receive relief from the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court for the same due process violations, there is therefore no reason to expect a different result in proceedings under these articles.

Additional to his claim before the Full Federal Court, the author claimed not to have been provided with necessary legal assistance before the first instance court.

Considering that it is possible to file a claim for damages only in court proceedings and that before initiating the court proceedings it is necessary to pay the state fee, the NGOs are of the opinion that in reality the possibility to claim damages has not been guaranteed to all women living in Estonia.

Finally, Mr. Adam did not make use of the possibility of filing a claim before the Constitutional Court.

The appellate court held that the plaintiff could claim damages under articles 35(1), 45 and 74 CISG.

The authors claim this situation arose because the President of the Court who handed down the 6 October 1993 ruling failed to record it in writing and has now moved to another court.

The court also held that if there was any claim against the defendant vessel, which claim was not precluded by the agreement to arbitrate, it could be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration in New York.

Several families filed a claim in an Israeli court to defend their 4,500 m2 of land and their right to free access to it.

However, the author has not substantiated his claim that the court acted arbitrarily or that it discriminated against him.

Wage earners, whose remuneration has been determined to be in violation of the above principles, are entitled to lodge a claim with a labour court.

6.3 The Committee notes the author's claim that the court was not independent and impartial as a number of judges on The Hague Regional Court and Court of Appeal were also practicing lawyers in the law firm against whom the author was taking legal action.

THE E2 CLAIM Background to the E2 claim The E2 claim in this instalment was initially filed in category D .

For this reason, the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the warranty claim and consequently dismissed the appeal.

38. However, the Supreme Court rejected the primary governmental claim that Saami as nomadic people cannot acquire title to land.

At the request of Saudi Arabia, the secretariat incorporated that claim in the current claim (Claim No. 5000463).

The claim preparers were often listed as the contact persons in the claim files and some claim files included attestations from the claim preparers opining on the merits of the claim.

It submitted that the claim concerning the judges of the Court of Appeal is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

They also claim that the Court applied the wrong criteria in concluding that the companies had merged As to the judgement against Mr. Deperraz, they contend that the Appeal Court ruled of its own motion on a charge of mismanagement not raised in the originating claim and not substantiated in law, in violation of the right to a defence and the principle of adversarial proceedings.

Although the author had made this last claim at the beginning of the oral proceedings, in accordance with the rules governing criminal procedure, the Constitutional Court ruled that the author's claim had been lodged out of time, when the delays had ended.

The first claim unit is for reduction in crop yields and the second claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

Second claim unit Claim preparation costs Saudi Arabia seeks compensation in the amount of USD 5,874 for claim preparation costs.

On 14 October 1999, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim, considering that it had not been filed within the statutory time limits.

1. A State instituting a proceeding before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any counterclaim arising out of the same legal relationship or facts as the principal claim.

The partnership agreement referenced in the court documents is signed by the Kuwaiti claimant's husband and specifically refers to the business that the Kuwaiti claimant claimed for in her claim.

On 28 December 1990, the company filed an independent claim in the National Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación), which in June 1992, decided that it lacked jurisdiction and that the complainant company should have filed its claim in the local courts established in the contract.

The deferred part of claim No. 5000379 has been included in claim No. 5000301.

The Court rejected the claim that the contract was governed by German law, under which the claim was time barred, holding that a German choice of law clause in the vendor's general terms of sale was never brought to the attention of the buyer or put in its possession.

Non governmental sources claim that the Chairman was removed in order to subordinate the Court to the executive, and that the Government falsified the parliamentary vote to do so.

She put in her claim.

In some instances, the Panel examined one E4 claim in relation to more than one individual claim.