The company lodged an appeal.

The buyer lodged an appeal.

An appeal had been lodged.

The author appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

She appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal.

3.3 Furthermore, the author submits that before the Court of Appeal, his counsel, who had not represented him at first instance, made no submissions in support of the appeal.

The written judgement of the Court of Appeal shows that author apos s counsel argued the appeal, even if he did not advance all the grounds that the author would have wanted argued.

The Supreme Court record indicates that 25 civil appeals and four criminal appeals were filed in 1993 38 civil appeals and five criminal appeals were filed in 1994 38 civil appeals and eight criminal appeals were filed in 1995 47 civil appeals and nine criminal appeals were filed in 1996 and seven civil appeals and seven criminal appeals were filed in 1997 as of 12 February.

She did not file an appeal.

In the case of the property in Plzen, although the author did file a constitutional appeal, he did so after the expiry of the deadline for filing such an appeal.

The right to appeal a decision exists.

We can also say that there was an emerging consensus on my proposal at least on my proposal on the item on nuclear weapons before the NAM proposal arose.

9.2 Counsel further claims that the issues were in fact raised on appeal, since the appeal filed by the author was based, inter alia, on the ground of unfair trial.

Mr. Choi appealed his sentence.

Please tell him to apply in writing.

2.5 Mr. Arutyuniantz appealed to the Supreme Court complaining about the above matter, with the exception of the allegation of being severely beaten.

3.5 Counsel also submits that, on appeal, the author apos s attorney pursued only one of four grounds of appeal, i.e, that the trial judge failed to put the issue of manslaughter to the jury.

In fact, we are proposing that a decision be taken on this proposal at our next plenary.

(d) Grounds of appeal before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal

The United States Government again appealed the decision and Mr. Ali cross appealed to preserve appellate review of all issues in his case.

August 1986.

The State party has been advised that the author has not yet lodged either a fresh evidence appeal or a petition of mercy.

He appealed to the High Court and subsequently to the Court of Appeal.

2.20 The author appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the conviction on 18 August 1999.

Presentations at a number of international conferences.

Other co accused in the same criminal procedure appealed the verdict.

The court apos s orders are subject to appeal.

Other alternatives were also suggested.

The present report is submitted pursuant to that request.

The verdict was said to be under appeal.

The author subsequently filed a new application for reconsideration and it too was rejected.

4.2 The State party contends that the author had the right to apply to the court for rehabilitation , but that no such application was made.

2.8 On 18 May 1999, the author filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, in which he complained about the above events.

The author's appeal to the Danish Refugee Board and his application to the Board of Appeal for leave to appeal the High Court's decision of 1 December 2003, were still pending when the State party made its submission.

2.7 The author appealed the decision of 1 September 1989.

According to the State party, no cassation appeal was introduced against this decision.

2.9 The authors challenged these rulings in the Court of Cassation on the following grounds

The Court of Appeal of Quebec rejected the appeal against the conviction and the Supreme Court of Canada refused the application for leave to appeal against this decision.

The author filed several procedural motions to reopen the proceedings and to appeal before the Supreme Court.

On the basis of the comments made by various members, the following comments are submitted on behalf of the Committee.

From the Commission apos s decisions, appeal is open to the Veterans Appeal Board, whose decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court Trial Division and, with leave, to the Federal Court Appeal Division, whose decisions may be appealed, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicant did not appeal against this decision.

He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

He appealed the sentence (No. 94 640 A4).

In view of the foregoing, the Panel makes the following recommendations