The author filed a counter claim.

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

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

Noting also that claim number 4002126 was thus filed as a consolidated claim in the name of Syndicate 1131 at Lloyd's,

As a result of further information received from the Governments of India, Pakistan and the Philippines, one claim submitted by the Government of India, one claim submitted by the Government of Pakistan and 22 claims submitted by the Government of the Philippines have been identified as having been filed for a higher amount in category A by a claimant who had also filed a claim in another claim category.

The one individual claim that was not filed through the Palestinian late claims programme was originally filed in the regular filing period for individual claims.

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

The Panel notes that Kuwait has restructured this claim unit since it was originally filed.

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

The Panel reviewed each proposed amendment to ensure that it did not constitute a new claim filed after the appropriate deadlines.

The remaining claim was deferred pending the receipt of a response to a request for information concerning the identity and evidence of authority of the individual who filed a claim on behalf of a deceased person.

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

To adopt a decision concerning the payment of claim No. 4002126 filed by Lloyd's Syndicate No. 1131 (S AC.26 Dec.255 (2005)).

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.

2.1 The author filed a workers compensation claim with the Deputy Commissioner of Worker's Compensation, for redress in respect of injuries he had suffered.

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.

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

In addition, as a result of the review of category D deceased detainee claims filed by the Government of Kuwait, the secretariat found one matching category A claim submitted by the Government of Iran under the regular claims programme that had been filed for a higher amount in category A .

A preliminary examination of these claims also revealed that in some instances the Kuwaiti companies in question had filed separate claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims. However, there were a number of instances where the Kuwaiti company had not filed a separate claim with the Commission.

The company considered that the costs for carrying out the work had risen disproportionately and, on 7 October 1988, filed and administrative claim against the Province of Neuquén, which was dismissed in 1989, for having been filed out of time.

While this claim had originally been filed during the regular claims filing period, it was identified as being a claim pertaining to the losses of a non Kuwaiti corporate entity at a time when it was too late to be included in an E2 Panel report within the regular claims programme.

The E4 claimant Al Nuwaisib Building Requirement was originally considered in the eighteenth instalment of E4 claims where it had been considered as overlapping with a category C claim filed by a different individual claimant.

The secretariat was further instructed to request Iran to provide information on the steps that it had taken to ensure that this claim did not duplicate, wholly or in part, any other claim that it had filed with the Commission.

The secretariat was further instructed to request Kuwait to provide information on the steps that it had taken to ensure that this claim did not duplicate, wholly or in part, any other claim that Kuwait had filed with the Commission.

The Panel checked the Kuwaiti company's own claim filed during the regular claims programme and noted that the company consisted of a small clothing store and a tailor shop with modest losses that did not include a computer network.

Due to an alleged failure from ENTEL to comply with the contract terms, the company filed an administrative claim against ENTEL in 1987, which was dismissed in May 1988.

Noting also that at the time of filing, the secretariat and the claimants were not aware that the consolidation would have consequences regarding the payment of the claim and that had separate claims been filed rather than a consolidated claim, the claimants would have been paid in full by mid 2003,

The term stand alone claims is defined in decision 123 of the Governing Council (S AC.26 Dec.123(2001)) and refers to claims filed by individuals in categories C and D for direct losses sustained by Kuwaiti companies, where the Kuwaiti company has not filed a claim in category E for such losses (the stand alone claims ).

In 1970, the first author filed an administrative claim against the Municipality in the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Provincia de Buenos Aires).

This instalment also includes one category C overlapping claim filed under the Palestinian late claims programme that was reviewed by the Panel as the merged E4 Panel had concluded its work programme.

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the category D claim filed by the individual claimant was in respect of losses of the business of the E4 claimant and not in respect of a separate and unrelated business.

With respect to the stand alone claims in this instalment, there is one occasion where more than one claim has been filed for the losses of the same company by the same individual claimant.

They filed a petition against this practice of admission quotas.

By contrast, in one set of potentially overlapping claims, the Panel reached the conclusion that the claims were overlapping, despite the individual claimant's assertion that his claim was mistakenly filed in the name of the E4 claimant.

In addition, a large number of motions were filed by the Defence.

Decision concerning the late filed category A and category C claims programme

2.6 In early 1997, Waldemar filed a second motion to change liquidators.

A contrario, such a request cannot be filed if the alleged perpetrator is unknown.

The Panel notes that the D Panels have found that all of the remaining individuals who have filed the stand alone claims in this instalment have shown authority to file the claim on behalf of the relevant company.

The Panel considers that this is a claim for claim preparation costs.

Specifically, the secretariat, in valuing the loss of money component of the claimant's D2 (personal injury) claim, made an incorrect deduction with respect to the amount of compensation already awarded to the claimant for the same loss by the E F Panel of Commissioners through a claim filed by the French Government entity responsible for compensating victims of terrorism (Fonds de Garantie Contre les Actes de Terrorisme).

a Amount claimed does not equal the total amount claimed and reclassified because the Panel valued the entire loss claimed on behalf of the company, which included KWD 68,600 in respect of UNCC claim No. 1507726, filed by the same individual claimant. See paragraph 12 above.

Duplication of claim awards In its review of the overlapping claims included in the Third special report and recommendations made by the merged E4' Panel of Commissioners concerning overlapping claims (S AC.26 2004 13), which recommendations were approved by the Governing Council in decision 231 (S AC.26 Dec.231(2004)), the secretariat identified two claims (one category C claim and one subcategory E4 claim) filed by two Governments for the same loss.

7.5 As to the claim that the author was deprived of his right to cross examine a crucial prosecution witness, the Committee notes the State party's contention that he was afforded, and took advantage, of the possibility to cross examine the public officers who had also filed a complaint against him.

Mr. F was convicted of attempted murder and a variety of property and firearms offences, and Mr. R was convicted of an offence against property. On 1 April 2003, after the unsuccessful conclusion of criminal proceedings, the author filed a claim for civil damages before the Thessaloniki first instance court.