Post by account_disabled on Feb 14, 2024 9:25:14 GMT
Adoctrine the High Court of Cassation and Justice holds that the possibility of the court to invoke ex officio the nullity of the contravention report under the conditions and for the reasons expressly provided in art. of Government Ordinance no. is not of a nature to replace the lack of motivation of the complaint this is because the competent court will analyze the contested act only in the event that it is legally notified i.e. when the complaint was promoted within the deadline and includes all the elements provided for by the.
Code of Civil Procedure under the penalty of nullity including Cyprus Email List the factual justification. . Such an interpretation of the norm under examination is fully supported and confirmed by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Maria Lefter against Romania in which the decision of inadmissibility of April cited above was pronounced. . Thus as it was already shown in the content of section VIII in the case with which it was vested the ECtHR examined precisely the application and settlement in the procedure of regularization of the summons request provided for by art. para. of the Code of.
Civil Procedure of a contravention complaint noting that it was required to present a complete application to the court precisely to allow the judge of the merits to examine the case expeditiously the elements provided by art. of the Code of Civil Procedure the omission of which in formulating the complaint could lead to the cancellation of the request being elements without which the examination of the case became difficult to conceive. . declared inadmissible the request based on the provisions of art. and of the Convention assessing on the one hand that the cancellation of the applicants request did not constitute a disproportionate interference in.
Code of Civil Procedure under the penalty of nullity including Cyprus Email List the factual justification. . Such an interpretation of the norm under examination is fully supported and confirmed by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Maria Lefter against Romania in which the decision of inadmissibility of April cited above was pronounced. . Thus as it was already shown in the content of section VIII in the case with which it was vested the ECtHR examined precisely the application and settlement in the procedure of regularization of the summons request provided for by art. para. of the Code of.
Civil Procedure of a contravention complaint noting that it was required to present a complete application to the court precisely to allow the judge of the merits to examine the case expeditiously the elements provided by art. of the Code of Civil Procedure the omission of which in formulating the complaint could lead to the cancellation of the request being elements without which the examination of the case became difficult to conceive. . declared inadmissible the request based on the provisions of art. and of the Convention assessing on the one hand that the cancellation of the applicants request did not constitute a disproportionate interference in.