The Court pointed out in that regard

In terms of the Court's functioning, it is important to note that the Court does not have its own enforcement arm.

The Court first recalled that Article 35 of the Statute of the Court concerns access to the present Court and not to its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ).

It emphasizes that to date only the proceedings in the Cascais civil courts have given rise to a Supreme Court ruling.

In that regard the Court, in 1995, noted as follows

It then observed that the conditions for the transfer of jurisdiction from the PCIJ to the present Court are governed by Article 37 of the Statute.

The Court also stated a number of principles on the examination of the goods.

The author observes that in his case the State party cited the text of a Supreme Court judgement in which it was expressly noted that both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court lacked competence to make a fresh appraisal of the facts and evidence.

He refers to the failure of the domestic Courts to uphold and enforce the decision of the Supreme Court of 3 May 1985.

He has not been brought before a judge nor charged.

He further argues that, since the author had available to him an appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the Privy Council, the Supreme Court would not have exercised its powers, pursuant to section 25, paragraph 2, of the Constitution.

The International Court of Justice has stated that the clause itself forms part of customary international law.

It states that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes have held that a pardon may be subject to judicial review.

As the President of the International Court of Justice has just pointed out, the work of the Court reached an unprecedented level of intensity during the period under review.

The Court noted that the question is not whether courts can make decisions that impact on budgetary policy it is to what degree they can appropriately do so.

The Committee notes that it appears from the written judgement of the Court of Appeal that the Court did review the case proprio motu.

In its judgement, the Constitutional Court stated that it was not in its remit to review the weighing of the evidence done by the trial court, or to review the conclusions of the Supreme Court.

The State party points out that the author should have lodged an amparo application before the Constitutional Court.

In that connection it was observed that, if relief had been granted by a court different from the court that opened the local insolvency proceedings, the decisions of the two courts might interfere between themselves.

The establishment of a Constitutional Court is especially important and ongoing preparations for the activation of bodies such as a provisional court of human rights are noted.

Non governmental sources indicated that, further to the decision by the Constitutional Court, the previous rules were still in force.

The Special Rapporteur is concerned to note that, in the absence of a Supreme Court, which is responsible for proposing a shortlist of candidates, it is impossible to appoint the members of the Constitutional Court.

to ensure that we cover the need of the customer to the extent that we can ensure that both the coverage of the insurance and the prices are as correct as possible.

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

The Court also notes that the figures given in paragraph 820 could be misleading.

The decision contained instructions on how to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The court s decision also indicated that the case had no prospects of success.

It was noted that the competence for the various judicial functions dealt with in the Model Provisions might lie with different courts in the enacting State, and that the enacting State would designate specific courts according to its own system of court competence.

(i) appointment of a person to act at the direction of the court

According to the judgement, the author and a co accused threatened a commercial partner who refused to transport livestock for them.

(ii) contains a prominent statement that there is an exclusive choice of court agreement and specifies its location within the volume contract and

The Special Rapporteur observes that the Supreme Electoral Court is the only high court to which new members have been appointed since the crisis in April of this year.

It was pointed out, however, that this argument would run against encouraging States which had not yet done so to accept the jurisdiction of the Court.

In the present case, the author neither appointed a process agent in the court's district prior to the Misdemeanours Court's resolution of the case nor appeared before the Appeals Court to make submissions on the absence of an agent and the case as a whole.

The forum should be one of those specified in draft article 72 and

The author filed criminal charges against the judges in the Supreme Court, alleging that they had committed an offence by handing down a manifestly unjust decision against him.

The author states that the Court approached the trial with a predisposition towards conviction, and that it upheld each and every accusation levelled against her son under the Criminal Code, even though some plainly had no application.

Ministry officials also noted that the levels of reparation payments set by the courts had increased steadily.

The letter pointed out several inconsistencies with the established rules, in particular regarding the election of the presidents of the three courts.

By Orders of the same date in the eight remaining cases, the Court stated that it lacked jurisdiction prima facie.

It points out that no importance whatsoever was attached, in the proceedings either before the Roskilde Court or those before the Eastern Division of the High Court, to this element.

He notes that, on the basis of previous experience, an appeal to the Court of Cassation would be futile and ineffective.

On 18 July he had appeared before the District Court in Novi Pazar for a hearing on charges brought against him in 1993.

8.3 The State party further notes that the author would have had an opportunity to appeal to the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia and thereafter the High Court of Australia if a complaint under Rule 98.01 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of South Australia had been dismissed by a single judge (section 50 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 (South Australia)).

The Court stated that it was strictly prohibited from reappraising the facts that the court of first instance had considered as evidence, since, by law, the appraisal function fell within the exclusive competence of the sentencing court.