The Court rejected the application.

The lower court rejected the application.

The Court considered the application to be admissible but groundless.

The High Court dismissed the application on 25 September 1996.

Application for leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court.

2.8 On 26 May 1997 the Constitutional Court rejected the application.

Application for leave to appeal denied by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Application for leave to appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lastly, her application to the Constitutional Court for amparo was also rejected.

His application was heard by a different composition of the Supreme Court.

The author filed an application for review of that decision, an application that was rejected by the court on 7 July 1998.

2.3 On 26 May 1997 Madrid Social Court No. 3 rejected his application.

3.3 The author did not make any application to the Constitutional Court for amparo.

When his complaint was rejected at the lower court and appeal levels, the author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court.

On 25 November 1996, the court rejected an application for review filed by the author.

On 3 May 2000, the Supreme Court refused the author's application for leave to appeal.

He did not even lodge an amparo application on this issue in the Constitutional Court.

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.

On 30 May 2002, the authors filed an application in the Central Court of Minsk seeking an order to direct the C.R.N. to determine their application.

2.3 In a judgement dated 27 January 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the application for annulment.

2.2 The author and his colleagues challenged the restructuring in an application to the Supreme Court.

Cyprus v. Turkey, judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 May, 2001, application no.

European Court of Human Rights, application No. 56811 00 (Amrollahi v. Denmark), Judgement of 11 July 2002.

The Caribbean Court of Justice is also a court of first instance for the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, the CARICOM founding charter.

According to the State party, the author should have submitted an application for amparo to the Constitutional Court.

2.3 The author lodged an amparo application before the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 29 January 1997.

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

In this case, Justice Wilcox of the Federal Court considered an application under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act.

Germany raised six preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of Liechtenstein's Application.

Nor did he pursue an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the second RRT decision.

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.

One of the formal requirements for filing an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court is to have exhausted judicial remedies, and the author had referred to the violation of her right to use means of proof in the application for reconsideration before the High Court.

Subsequently, the author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, alleging, among other arguments, the failure of the Provincial High Court to state the grounds for its decision.

2.8 The file that the authors submitted to the Committee contains a copy of the application to the European Court.

European Court of Human Rights, decision on admissibility of application No. 51187 99 (Chanderballi Mahabir v. Austria), 19 November 1999.

Stay of Application, dated 20 March 2002, Jazairi v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Wilkins J.).

On 7 October 1993, in a telephone call from the court registry, the authors' counsel was informed that the Court had handed down a judgement the previous day rejecting this application.

The Court recalled that i t is up to the court, which is legally competent under the law, to decide whether the subject matter of an application comes under its jurisdiction.

The author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 25 October 1999 on the grounds that the court of first instance had already resolved the matter.

2.3 On 15 February 1994, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to alter the verdict and on 11 August 1994 the Canadian Supreme Court rejected the author's application for leave to appeal.

On 4 July 2002, the Court issued an order requiring the C.R.N. to decide on the authors' application within a month.

European Court of Human Rights, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, application No. 30544 96, judgement of 21 January 1999, at para. 26.

The Court also added that an application under article 16 (3) MAL is not an appeal against the decision of the tribunal.

The Federal Court also has authority to order the stay of an expulsion order pending consideration of an application for judicial review.

On 28 February 2002, the complainant withdrew an application to the High Court for leave to appeal the Full Federal Court's decision.