Примеры использования Supreme court quashed на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
On 16 February 2005, the Supreme Court quashed the writ of habeas corpus.
The Supreme Court quashed the district court judgement and referred the case to a court of appeal for retrial.
On the basis of protest motions by the General Prosecutor's Office, the Supreme Court quashed and modified 126 final rulings on administrative offences which had already been enforced.
The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the High Court and sentenced the author to, inter alia, 5 years' imprisonment.
The Council of Elders case is currently stalled: in March 2008,the Federal Supreme Court quashed the order of the Kabardino-Balkaria Court to liquidate the group, and sent the case back to be reconsidered.
The Supreme Court quashed the judgement of the High Court and sentenced the author to, inter alia, 5 years' imprisonment.
On an unspecified date, this ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court and,on 26 August 2002, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling and returned the case to the Gomel Regional Court, directing it to initiate proceedings.
Thus, in 2007, the Supreme Court quashed or modified decisions in 24.4 per cent of administrative cases appealed, and in 2008 the corresponding percentage was 29.6 per cent.
On 12 November 2001, the Tashkent Regional Court re-qualified the crimes in relation to the murders, but maintained the death sentences.On 23 April 2002, the Supreme Court quashed the sentences of death and commuted them to 20 years' imprisonment.
In our case, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the Novosibirsk courts and sent the case for a new trial.
Following a decision by the Supreme Court in 1995 that the courts were not competent to rule on actions for recovery of expropriated buildings, the Procurator General filed appeals in the interest of law in a number of cases previously decided by the courts, including the authors' case.On 8 May 1996, the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's decision in the authors' case, holding it had exceeded its judicial competence and violated the principle of separation of powers.
The President of the Supreme Court quashed or modified the rulings in 116 cases 63 at the request of the procurator's office.
With regard to the author's claim that the overturning of his acquittal on the basis of the victim's appeal was not based on law, the State party confirmed that on 28 December 1999, a jury in the Moscow Regional Court acquitted him of the charges under article 105, part 2, and article 222, part 1, of the Criminal Code but found him guilty of forgery.On 13 April 2000, the Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court quashed the acquittal and ordered a retrial.
The Chairperson of the Supreme Court quashed or modified the decisions(rulings) in 116 cases 63 at the request of the prosecutor's office.
Following an acquittal by Groningen district court in a case of discrimination at a discotheque, the Supreme Court quashed the judgement and referred the case to the court of appeal in Leeuwarden, which pronounced judgement on 3 April 2001.
The Supreme Court quashed the cassation decision and sent the case to the circuit court for review, finding that the support strike is illegal if the strike that is being supported is legal and the strike has been preceded by a conciliation.
Thus, in 2007 and 2008 respectively,the Chair of the Supreme Court quashed or altered 24.4 per cent and 29.6 per cent of the administrative cases that were examined.
On 27 December 2006, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Zhalalabad Regional Court and upheld the decision of the Suzak District Court. .
The State party reiterated the facts of the case, also submitting that,on 27 December 2006, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Zhalal-Abad Regional Court of 5 September 2006 and upheld the decision of the Suzak District Court of 21 September 2005.
However, on 6 June 1995 the Supreme Court quashed the judgement acquitting him and ordered a new trial, which is under way.
The prosecution as well as the author appealed to the Military College of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.On 27 May 2003, the Supreme Court quashed the 26 June 2002 sentence of the Moscow Regional Military Court and referred the case back to the same court for a new examination, but with a different composition.
Then, without giving any reasons, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the appellate court and its finding of insufficient prosecutorial evidence for a conviction and reinstated the sentence.
Appeal in cassation was lodged against the Appeal Court judgement, andon 13 December 1991 the Supreme Court quashed both judgements on the grounds that the distinction made in this case was on grounds of nationality in the purely political sense and so was not automatically covered by the anti-discrimination provisions.
After several postponements, the Supreme Court quashed the judgement of the Benghazi Appeals Court and returned the case for retrial to the Tripoli Court on 25 December 2005.
After postponing its sessions repeatedly, the Supreme Court quashed the judgement of the Benghazi Appeals Court and referred the case for retrial to the Tripoli Criminal Court on 25 December 2005.
In a case brought by Hafiz Saeed(QI.S.263.08), the Supreme Court quashed the Punjab government's restrictive measures taken under the maintenance of public order act owing to"insufficient evidence.
The Court lifted all restriction measures on the complainant.On 27 October 2009, the Supreme Court quashed the Florence Appeal Court judgement and found that the conditions for the complainant's extradition had been met and ordered the complainant's detention on remand until further decision by the Ministry of Justice.
The following developments have since taken place.On 18 October 1988, the Supreme Court quashed the verdict of the Arnhem Court of Appeal(dated 29 May 1987), which had found the defendants not guilty of making utterances offensive to Jews on the grounds of their race, religion or ideology. On 16 March 1989 the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal sentenced the couple to two months' imprisonment, suspended for two years.
Contrary to certain claims, those guarantees were translated into fact,as evidenced in particular by one of numerous rulings handed down by the Supreme Court quashing a conviction by a court on the grounds that it had been based on confessions obtained through coercion of the individual concerned.
Moreover, other decisions on extradition had been quashed by the Supreme Court.