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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A claim brought by Prince Hans Adam II before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the decisions by the German courts was also dismissed.

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.

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.

On 23 April 2001, the author cited the Constitutional Court ruling of 28 June 1999, made two years after the original claim, to allege that it was not necessary to lodge an amparo application before the Constitutional Court.

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 sixth claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

The fifth claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

The third claim unit is for claim preparation costs.

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.

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

As a reasonable excuse for the failure to give the required notice under article 44 CISG could not be found, the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff s claim.

They have the right to appeal to a military court but claim that interventions by the GSS have subverted the judicial process, making the appeals a farce.

On 22 September 1998, the Hague Court of Appeal declared the author's claim inadmissible as, under Dutch law, the decision not to refer the case to another court could not be appealed separately from the Court's ruling on the case itself.

6.4 As to the claim under article 9, paragraph 4, the Committee finds that, as the author is currently serving the minimum duration of a prison sentence as decided by a court of law, his claim does not fall within the purview of this provision.

The law also provides that a court on application for a legal remedy (appeal) shall hear the parties and receive the prosecutor's proposal before declaring a claim inadmissible.

The Claim