The applicant, Das Universelle Leben Aller Kulturen Weltweit e.V., is a German association, which has its seat in Marktheidenfeld. It was represented before the Court by Mr C.

FACTS   Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant, excluding those which relate to the complaints already rejected by the Commission, may be summarised as follows:   The Applicant is a German

    Relevant domestic la w and practice Article 13 of the German Constitution (“the Basic Law) guarantees the inviolability of a person’s home.

Julia Glasenapp, who is a German national born in 1947, lives in Cologne.

However, this rule did not apply to telephone connections situated abroad if it could be ruled out that connections concerning German nationals or German companies were deliberately being monitored (third

  The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1919 and at present detained in prison in Karlsruhe.   He is represented by Messrs.

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin , of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.

    In a case concerning the adoption by a German national of an adult who had held Austrian citizenship since birth, the Constitutional Court held in a decision of 27 November 2003 (B 557/03

  The applicant submitted in reply that, according to German law, nobody is obliged to make statements before a court.

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Wittling-Vogel, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Behr, Regierungsdirektorin , of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs K. Behr and Mr H.-J. Behrens, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.

  The President gave the lawyer leave to use the German language in both the written and the oral proceedings (Rule 28 para. 3).

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Wittling-Vogel of the Federal Ministry of Justice, and by Mr C. Walter, Professor of international law. 3.

It was noted in this connection that the parties had not chosen to regulate the employment contract under German law. Instead Polish labour law was applicable.

xa0;    The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:         The first applicant, born in 1937, is a German

    On 31 July 2017 the Court decided to apply Rule 39 and indicated to the German Government, in the parties’ interest and that of the smooth conduct of the proceedings, that they should not

xa0; Communicated on 9 November 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 486/14 Waltraud STORCK against Germany lodged on 31 December 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Waltraud Storck, is a German

She argued that the German courts had interpreted sections   1365 and 1368 of the Civil Code in a manner which disregarded her right to respect for her family life as protected by the Basic Law.