In certain recent cases the respondent State has not only replied upon the merits but has also brought counter claims (Oil Platforms Genocide).

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent as stated above, the Administrative Law Unit represents the respondent at all stages of the appeals process.

Upon challenge by the respondent, the arbitration tribunal declared not to have any jurisdiction as in its views the respondent had validly terminated the arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff (respondent) commenced an action against defendant (appellant) and McElhanney.

The respondent paid for only a part of the delivered goods.

At the same time the Court deemed that the claimant, by obeying the procedural terms set up by the respondent, had refrained from pursuing its rights before State Courts.

Furthermore, the respondent had consented that any award rendered by the arbitral tribunal could be declared enforceable by State Courts in accordance with the provisions of the ZPO concerning arbitration.

The claimant and the respondent were parties to a joint venture agreement.

The respondent refused payment owing to the poor quality of the goods.

2. A State shall not be required to provide any security, bond or deposit, however described, to guarantee the payment of judicial costs or expenses in any proceeding to which it is a respondent party before a court of another State.

Before the Court could decide on the application, the respondent nominated an arbitrator.

No respondent indicated the use of private agencies for the collection of data.

In turn, the plaintiff brought an incidental warranty action in appeal against the respondent.

Plaintiff (respondent) nominated McElhanney Engineering Services Ltd. (McElhanney) as a consultant under the contract.

While the claimant and the respondent had signed the arbitration agreement, a company (the sole shareholder of the respondent), the individual shareholders of that company, and the wholly owned subsidiaries of the claimant had not.

With regard to paragraph 2, the Commission was commended for revising the exhaustion requirement, which it had previously limited to remedies available as of right in the municipal law of the respondent State.

The respondent, Satnam Vaid, was the driver of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The respondent objected, invoking the Polish judgment and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.

Summoning of the victim, witness, civil plaintiff, civil respondent, their representatives and experts (article 476)

Such an order was granted but subsequently, following a motion of the respondent, set aside.

The applicant cooperated with the Commission and was not cited as a respondent in the case.

The Commission might consider, at the preliminary stage, the relevance of privileges and immunities accorded to an international organization in the State in which the injury occurred, in particular, the availability of a remedy under the constituent instrument of the organization to which the respondent State was a party.

The Court rejected the application and concluded that the respondent was still bound by the arbitration agreement.

Both the country of the claimant and that of the respondent were States Parties to the CISG.

It finally asserted that the respondent had waived its right to arbitration by commencing a Builder's Lien action.

The Court of Appeal directed that all issues between the claimant and the respondent be referred to arbitration.

The respondent in the arbitral proceedings was one of the founding partners of a Limited Partnership (hereinafter LP).

The Court acknowledged that the respondent was not time barred to raise defences against enforcement, since the three month period only started to run when the award was formally served on the respondent and registered with the German Courts, as required under the old law.

On the other hand, the respondent refused to appoint an arbitrator, and, pursuant to 1032 German Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ZPO) based on article 8 (1) MAL, objected to the proceedings before a State Court given the existing arbitration clause.

The respondent objected that the claimant was barred, because the matter had already been settled by the arbitral award.

The respondent (hereinafter the appellant ) appealed against an order of the Trial Division declaring a foreign arbitral award enforceable.

One respondent endorsed enhanced and continued cooperation between the World Health Organization and UNDCP in areas of mutual competence.

The claimant, a Hungarian company, and the respondent, an Austrian company, signed a contract for the sale of containers.

(c) Representation of the respondent before the Board when a staff member requests suspension of action of an administrative decision

For example, 65 per cent of respondent countries applied the absolute concept of poverty, while about one third did not.

Another respondent considered that UNDCP should promote activities of non governmental organizations and should encourage activities of the private sector.

One respondent stated that it had already provided complimentary funding through its aid programme where bilateral priorities intersected with UNDCP.

The respondent acknowledged the assignment, but could not pay on the basis that the UN embargo was a force majeure.

Accordingly, the arbitral court held that the respondent was obliged to pay the price of the delivered goods with interest.

The fact that neither the Attorney General, who usually represents the State in court proceedings, nor the Supreme Council as respondent filed an appearance before the Supreme Court illustrated that the 13 judges on the Supreme Court were judges in their own cause.

The material facts of that case were similar to the author apos s the respondent was the LLC of South Australia, the same person as in the author apos s case, and the matter at issue was the respondent apos s refusal to approve the plaintiff apos s employment.

The respondent opposed this declaration and asked the Court to reject the claimant's application to declare the tribunal's temporary injunction enforceable.

Another respondent believed that the Commission should include the review of the 1988 Convention as a regular item on its agenda.

One respondent was of the opinion that UNDCP should work more systematically towards involving all development agencies in international drug control activities.