Είναι

Είναι

Αποτελέσματα (Αγγλικά) 1:

However the above on receipt of actual document document to foreign recipient of planned only by the provisions of the Hague Convention, so only apply between States that have ratified it. The anakopton and prostheton opposition calls for akyrwthoym reason for the written in the present statement of reasons, the thp΄arithmo 3,972/18-6-2013 report forced seizure poioy drawn up by the judicial court curator of Corinth basilliki kakanaraki – proyntzoy, yp΄arithmos 3.59218-6-2013 summary of 591 yp΄arithmos/6/18/2013 report forced seizure of a ship, which inyntachthike from the same as upper court curator, 4,330 yp΄arithmos/2210-13 bears number s΄epanaliptiki summary of 3,591/18-6-2013 report forced confiscation of the ship, drawn up by the same aforementioned legal curator, and any related to those earlier or subsequent enforcement Act, or under content Mayto crisis opposition and the notice of addiof speech, which were served in the kath΄oy in 8-11-2003 and 13-12-2013 respectively, aparadektws imported to discuss during this regular procedure, kat΄arthro 937 first 3 Ccp, as added by article 19 paragraph 2 Law 405/2012 (with power enerxi the 2-4-2012) under the process of credit securities, which efamozei ex officio kat΄arthro 591 first 2 Ccp this Court , which has jurisdiction, since it is kath΄ylin and territorial jurisdiction (section 933 first 1 and 2 584 Ccp) Also brought in crisis time namely anakopti within the prothesmiae article 934 first 1 approx. II4CCP, apart from the reasons of those who are challenging the enforcement order, which is aporripteoi as ekprothesmoi as will be listed below in the examination of the grounds, with regard to the application of the additional speech brought on time (articles 585 first 2 and 934 first 1 approx. B΄KpolD). We must therefore by this arrest and the application to add researched further as to the admissibility and the merits of the grounds. The intervener lodged an additional company if in favour of anakoptoysas For claiming that the permission of the Minister of Justice on the basis of which enforcement action instituted against plioy property has withdrawn so the opposition against enforcement should be accepted, With this content the additional intervention is introduced to officially syzitithI before this Dikasirioy < However is rejected due to lack of passive legitimacy with regard to the second of kath΄wn additional intervention, once practiced in favor of and aparadektws turned against Pay lexoda won't bear as not submitted a relevant request from the second of kath΄wn additional intervention with regard to the first of the kath΄wn the adcomplex intervention is to provide denotations rejected as inadmissible due to lack of legal interest, as with the assumption by the intervener that the seizure of the ship in question was prior authorization of the Minister of Justice, the withdrawal of which rendered void the enforcement procedure, the intervener also admits that the ship belongs to butodapo public and not in itself is a public limited company. Epikoleitai not that there is also some damage where the decision will be issued within the framework of litigation under the opposition's crisis at the expense of anakoptoysas, Follows the Sub crisis special paembasi must be rejected. Finally the costs should be set between the intervener and the first addition of extra kath΄wn if, by virtue of the special difficulty in the interpretation of the rules being applied. 5By tomn first kogo of opposition the anakopton claims that the enforcement procedure is invalid because: 1) frequented by thousands of 84.485-25-6-2009 license issued as referred to in item 1. Major thinking of this, has been withdrawn by the 86.566/yp΄arithmos 11-10-2013 yporgiki decision. The above part of the reason this is legitimate and should be researched further substantially only in relation to acts which took place from 11-102013kai then see. Frequented by thousands of 4,330/22-10-2013 a΄epannaliptiki summary sub number 2,804/18-6-2013 report forced seizure of ship's first instance court curator Corinth basikikis – kakanaraki Proyntzoy). So revoked the authorization referred to above and considered as to (recursively) void acts that have taken place in run legally – at the time that the license was Especially the withdrawal of the authorisation of the Yporgoy seemed appropriate Justice to avoid disruption of interstate relations of the country with anakoptoysa. The above-mentioned avoidance of disruption however can be achieved simultaneously with maintaining legal certainty in the country, which will be current here would, if the Sub was accepted during the crisis reason above strand. with the legal overthrow legitimate acts anepereisti retroactive enforcement. The which have shaped certain legal relations. 2) Exercised improperly because the latter has been called tickets from the shipowning company to release the ship, since after the abovementioned anaklesi of authorization cannot be apostelesei antiperiterw enforcement. The above part of the reason this is discarded as non-legitimate, since until the withdrawal of authorization accelerating forced EC

Αποτελέσματα (Αγγλικά) 2:

However the above on actual allotment of epidoteou document to the foreign recipient's provided only by the provisions of the Hague Convention therefore apply only between the States which have ratified it.
The plaintiffs and additional ground of opposition calls for akyrothoum those indicated in the present application reasons, thparithmo 3591 / 06.18.2013 seizure report Who drafted by the judicial curator of the District Court Corinth vasilliki kakanaraki - Prountzos the decision no 3.59218-6-2013 summary of the decision no 591/18/6 / 2013 report forced seizure of the ship, drawn from the same aforementioned judicial curator, the decision no 3609 / 2210-2013 sepanaliptiki summary of decision number 3591 / 18.6.2013 exposure forced the ship seizure, prepared by the same as above judicial curator, and any associated with these previous or subsequent enforcement practice Mafto content or present opposition and the application of this additional plea, served on a defendant in 11/8/2003 and 13-12 -2013 respectively inadmissible imported be taken during this regular process, as according to article 937 paragraph 3 the Code, as added by Article 19 paragraph 2 Law 405/2012 (with enerxi force on 02.04.2012) under the process of debt, which efamozei automatically according to article 591 paragraph 2 Code of Civil Law this Court, which has jurisdiction, since jurisdiction kathylin and territorial (Article 933 paragraph 1 and 2584 Code of Civil Law) Also under the opponent was brought in good time and specifically within the prothesmiae Article 934 paragraph 1 case. B
4
Code of Civil Law, besides the reasons of those who are challenging the enforcement order, which must be rejected as out of time, as will be quoted below in the examination of the reasons Regarding the application the additional speech brought timely (Articles 585 paragraph 2 and 934 paragraph 1 approx. VKpolD). It is therefore the judgment under arrest and the additional speech application further investigated as to the admissibility and merits of the grounds.
The intervener brought an additional paremvsi favor opponent Sygkekrmena claiming that the permission of Minister of Justice under which expedited enforcement in weight property pliou has therefore withdrawn its opposition against the enforcement must be upheld, With this additional intervention content competently introduced to discuss before this Dikasiriou <however be dismissed for lack of passive legitimacy with respect to the second of the defendants additional intervention, having exercised favor and unacceptably turned against Legal lexoda not be awarded as there was a request by the defendants in the second additional intervention with respect to the first of the defendants additional intervention is rejected as inadmissible for lack of legal interest and this as well with the assumption by the intervener that the seizure of the ship in question was a prior authorization of the Minister of Justice, the withdrawal of which rendered void the enforcement process, the intervener also acknowledges that the ship in question belongs to a foreign public and not in one that is a limited company. Nor paste that is damaged if the decision will be issued within hearing of sub opposition deems to be against the opponent, then the present additional paemvasi must be rejected. end costs should be offset between the interveners and the first of the defendants additional paremvsi given the particular difficulties in the interpretation of the rules applied.
5
With tomn first kogo of opposition the opponent argues that the process of enforcement is invalid because: 1) The decision no 84.485 / 25-6-2009 license issued as referred to under item 1. Major paragraph of this withdrawn by decision no 86 566 / 10.11.2013 yporgiki decision. The above part of this plea is legitimate and should be investigated further substantially only in relation to the enforcement actions took place from the 11-102013kai after see. Decision no 3609 / 22.10.2013 aepannaliptiki summary of sub number 3591 / 18.6.2013 exposure forced the ship seizure judicial curator of the District Court Corinth vasikikis kakanaraki -Prountzou). So withdrawn in the above permission and so as to be considered (retrospectively) void enforcement actions that took place legally - at the time the authorization takes effect Eidkotera revocation of the license has been advocated by the Yporgou Justice to avoid disruption of interstate relations the country with the opponent. The aforementioned avoid disruption but can be achieved simultaneously with the preservation of the country's legal certainty that will shaken, if it were upheld this plea in the above part of. the legally anepereisti retrospective undermine legitimate enforcement actions. The with which they have developed some legal relations. 2) exercised abusively because the injunction has been called out of court by the shipping company to release the ship, since after the aforementioned anaklesi THE license can not apostelesei antiperitero enforcement. The above part of the plea must be rejected as illegitimate, since until the withdrawal of the authorization of forced acceleration of

Αποτελέσματα (Αγγλικά) 3:

However the above on real an enforcement event of επιδοτέου document for a foreign person provided for by the provisions of the Hague Convention,Therefore, apply only between the states which have ratified it. The ανακόπτον and προσθέτον reason opposition calls to ακυρωθουμ for the indicated in this application, the θπ΄αριθμό 3.591/18-6-2013 Report forced seizure πόίου drafted by the Huissier the Court of First Instance Corinth βασιλλική κακαναράκη - προύντζου , the υπ΄αριθμός 3.59218-6-2013 Summary of υπ΄αριθμός 591/18/6/2013 report compulsory confiscation of a vessel, which was drafted by the same as upper HUISSIER , the υπ΄αριθμός 3.609/2210-2013 σ΄επαναληπτική summary of first number 3,591/18-6-2013 Report forced seizure board , which was drafted by the same HUISSIER , and any associated with the above prior or subsequent act enforcement ,Μαυτό the content or the opposition and the application of the additional reason for this , handed down in καθ΄ου on 8-11-2003 and 13-12-2013 respectively,Cannot be imported to be discussed during this regular procedure, as well as 937 κατ΄άρθρο (3) ΚπολΔ,As inserted by Article 19 paragraph 2 law 405/2012 (with power FETTSCA dated the 2-4 -2012)falling under the procedure of credit securities , which automatically εφαμόζει κατ΄άρθρο 591 (2 ΚπολΔ this court ,Who has jurisdiction ,After responsible καθ΄ύλην and jurisdiction (Article 933 (1) and 2 584 ΚπολΔ) also the ανακοπτή brought in good time and in particular within the προθεσμίαε of Article 934 (1) approx. II (4) ΚπολΔ,Except for the reasons of those who criticize the enforcement order, which must be rejected as contesting , as set out below in the examination of the reasons ,As regards the application of the additional submission was filed (Articles 585 (2) and 934 (1) approx. Β΄ΚπολΔ).It is necessary that the opposition and the application additive ratio to investigate further as to the admissibility and the merits of the reasons.
The intervener company brought an additional παρέμβση for ανακόπτουσας Συγκεκρμένα arguing that the authorization of the Minister for Justice on the basis of which expedite enforcement against πλίου propertyHas withdrawn its opposition to enforcement must be accepted ,With this content the additional intervention supported by imported to be discussed before this Δικασηρίου < but is rejected because of a lack of passive money in relation to the second of the καθ΄ωνIntervention ,Having applied for and cannot turned against ordered λεξοδα will not be awarded as a request from the second of καθ΄ων additional intervention with regard to the first of καθ΄ωνAdditional intervention ,Είναη must be dismissed as inadmissible because of a lack of legitimate interest ,And this together with the assumption by the intervener that for the seizure of the ship was the prior authorization of the Minister of Justice ,The withdrawal of which made void the enforcement proceedings , the intervener also admits that the disputed ship owned by a foreign government and not the same that is a limited liability company .Also επικολείται not that there is a fault in the case that the decision to be adopted in the context of appeals sub crisis opposition is at the expense of ανακόπτουσας ,Follows the sub crisis additional παέμβαση must be rejected .Finally, the costs must be ordered between supported by the intervener, the first of the καθ΄ων additional παρέμβση because of the particular difficulty in interpreting the rules applied.
5
With τομν first κόγο of opposition the ανακόπτον argues that the process of enforcement is invalid because: 1) The υπ΄αριθμό 84.485/25-6-2009 license issued by the referred to under item 1.Major point of this , was withdrawn at the υπ΄αριθμός 86.566/11-10-2013 υποργική decision .The upper part of that submission is legitimate and must be further investigated κατ΄ουσίαν only with respect to the operations which took place from the 11-102013then see Υπ΄αριθμό 3.609/22-10-2013 Α΄επανναληπτική summary of sub number 3.591/18-6-2013 report forced seizure of ship's judicial επιμελήτριας of first instance Corinth βασικικής κακαναράκη -Προύντζου).So withdrawn in the above the license and this as well as be considered (retroactively) void the operations which took place legally - at the time that was the license with particular reference to revoke the license wasFrom the Υποργού justice to avoid disruption of inter-state relations of the country with the ανακοπτουσα .The aforementioned avoid disruption however can be achieved while maintaining the legal security of the country which would jeopardize , if admitted the crisis mentioned in the above part of the .With the legal ανεπέρειστη retroactive undermine legitimate transactions enforcement . The have been configured certain legal relations . 2) EXERCISED improperly ,Because the party seeking enforcement has been consulted affiliation of the shipowning company to release the vessel securely after the abovementioned ανάκλεση the license cannot be αποστελέσει αντιπεριτέρω enforcement .As the upper part of that submission must be rejected as non-statutory , after the until the withdrawal of the authorisation of speeding up forced EC