disposition particulière prévoit la destruction des objets placés sous main de justice ; qu'en l'espèce, la demande de restitution de Mme X... épouse, Y... porte sur une carabine de chasse à lunette « Blaser Germany

  The government notes further that the Convention is directly applicable in German law and considers that the German courts will not fail, in case they were to be seized with new cases of the present

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2002)101 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 May 2001 (final on 31 August 2001) in the case of Metzger against Germany

sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2002)88 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 December 2001 in the case of Janssen against Germany

AGAINST GERMANY (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999 at the 688th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention

Germany (application nos. 46720/99, 72203/01, 72552/01).

} .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Resolution ResDH(2004)40 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 February 2002 (final on 10 July 2002) in the case of Kutzner against Germany

case-law, the Court found that the mere fact that the EPO’s decision was taken at its seat on German territory did not bring the act within Germany’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article   1

The European Court found that the administrative authorities had failed to take sufficient account of the following points: he had lived in Germany since he was 10 and had been lawfully residing in Germany

AGAINST GERMANY (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 April 1998 at the 626th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)           The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of

In his application to the Court, he complained in particular that the German courts had wrongly assumed jurisdiction to try him and that their interpretation of the crime of genocide had no basis in German

sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2003)3 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 13 February 2001 in the case of Lietzow against Germany

, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 July 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Jörg Rudolf Schöps, a German national, and that the Commission declared admissible the

Germany and Hoffmann v. Germany.

  Germany refused to comply with the decision and the applicants stated their desire to seize certain German property in Greece.

In Germany, the applicant was remanded in custody pending extradition.

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2001)103 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 July 2000 (final on 27 October 2000) in the case of Klein against Germany

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2002)123 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 October 2001 (final on 27 March 2002) in the case of Mianowicz against Germany