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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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 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.

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.

6.5 Inasmuch as the second claim is concerned (bias because of the Supreme Court judges' position on the National Insurers Association Supervisory Board), the Committee observes that the author challenged the two Supreme Court judges in question and requested that they recuse themselves.

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).

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.

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.

The Appeals Court thus accepted the proposal of the prosecutor to declare the appeal inadmissible for failure to appoint a process agent between the filing of his initial claim on 7 April 1998 and the entry of acquittal by the Misdemeanours Court in 2000.

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

4.3 The State party submits that the communication is manifestly ill founded and contests the claim that the author was prevented from presenting documentary evidence or participating in the court proceedings.

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.

Third claim unit Claim preparation costs Jordan seeks compensation in the amount of USD 1,700,000 for claim preparation costs for its fourth and fifth F4 instalment claims, including its public health claim.

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

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

2.5 In the second case (the Plzen property), the Plzen mesto District Court dismissed the author's restitution claim on 22 September 1995, because he did not fulfil the condition of Czech citizenship in 1991.

On 13 June 1987, the Supreme Court dismissed his claim, holding that he had been correctly reinstated in his old post, and noted that he was paid at a higher salary scale.