In May 2001, the migration agent advised that the class action had been refused, but that another class action had been commenced.

In March 1990, Bilumen filed a motion for dismissal of the action, pointing to the arbitration clause.

The appeal against the stay was thus dismissed (article 8(1) MAL).

And the court dismisses the case before it

On 25 September 1989, the company filed a suit in the Court for Administrative Affaires of First Instance.

The Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court rejected the application.

Altogether, 353 claims had been rejected, while the others had been sent to the National Foundation for Indigenous Affairs for further study.

Tripal responded with its own motion for dismissal on the grounds that only the arbitral tribunal was competent at that stage of the proceedings.

If their request had been rejected, they could have filed a complaint before the administrative tribunals, invoking the State apos s no fault responsibility (responsabilité sans faute).

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.

In a similar case, complaints by Transcendental Meditation were rejected in various proceedings which went as far as the Constitutional Court.

The claims about undue prolongation of the proceedings and the violation of the presumption of innocence were dismissed as unsubstantiated.

All those complaints were rejected.

Those proceedings were dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Te Runanga o Wharekauri v. Attorney General (1993) on the basis of the established principle of non interference by the courts in parliamentary proceedings.

2.7 On 28 June 1999, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Prosecutor v.

In a prior decision in the latter context, the Chamber had rejected the application by the Prosecutor for a stay of all proceedings with respect to the accused referred to in the collective indictment.

Finally, the Court of Appeal rejected the lower court's argument that a referral to arbitration of only some of the causes of action brought before it could be inconvenient , as there would be two suits at the same time, with the risk of contradictory findings.

The application was dismissed on 30 June 1998.

The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 3 October 1988.

An appeal was rejected by the Stuttgart Public Prosecutor General.

Pursuant to 1032 (1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, based on article 8 (1) MAL, the Court thus dismissed the case and referred the parties to arbitration.

The matter was transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court, which summarily dismissed the claim on 20 September 2001, on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On that date, the Panel issued a Procedural Ruling denying Iraq s request, submitted immediately prior to the oral proceedings, to postpone the oral proceedings and to grant Iraq additional time to prepare its legal defense in the WBC Claim.

It was after this refusal that the father filed his appeal.

His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica on 7 December 1990.

His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica on 16 May 1990.

On 23 February 1990, the Court of Appeal of Versailles dismissed his appeal.

On 19 November 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the author's application and on 24 December 1999, rejected his appeal from the Court of Appeal.

This new application was rejected on 15 October 2002.

On 19 February 1999, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

The latter was dismissed on 18 November 1998 for failure to exhaust available remedies, as the action was still pending in the Prague High Court.

Appeals against this decision were dismissed by the Appeals Chamber on 24 September 2003.

The Court of Cassation rejected his further appeal on 9 April 1991.

4.7 On 3 June 2002 the Board rejected the appeal.

On 21 September 1990, the Constitutional Tribunal rejected his complaint.

The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed their application for leave to appeal on 12 October 1987.

The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed the author apos s appeal on 22 May 1987.

97. In a letter of 29 October 1996, the Government of Chile provided information on judicial proceedings to date in the Carmelo Soria case, transmitting a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, which dismissed the proceedings pursuant to the Decree Law on Amnesty.

While the initial action was dismissed on grounds of procedural defect, the Court made clear that it was open to them to bring a fresh application. They did not do so.

2.13 On 26 March, the author filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeal, seeking to annul the order of the Trial Court, dismissing the demurrer to evidence of 22 January 1996, as well as the order of the same court of 11 March 1996, which denied the motion for reconsideration.

Her appeal was ultimately dismissed as having been filed outside the statutory deadline.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court dismissed the authors' appeal.

The High Court dismissed the application on 25 September 1996.