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?

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.

The Court made short shrift of Ellwanger's claim, becauseall human beings can be the victims of racism.

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

And, upon this revelation the court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure and Daly kept his home.

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.

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.

The Court must rule on German plaintiffs claim that legislation to establish the ESM would violate Germany s Grundgesetz (Basic Law).

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

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.

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.

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.

Is it true you're collecting thousands of dollars in revenues, rents and royalties... even before your claim has been recognized in any 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The Claim

The claim

Overlapping claim

Claim form

Claim it.

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

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.

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.

Such persons could claim for the benefits of the Decree provided that they had not received any compensation as a result of a court judgement.

This claim was originally part of category F3 claim No. 5000194.

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.

On May 27, 2003, the court granted Google's motion to dismiss the complaint because SearchKing failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

If the person fails to perform the duty to provide maintenance, the court will order maintenance to be paid as of the submission of the claim.

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

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.

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.

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.