Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Gisela Ruths, is a German national who lives in Eppelheim.

Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006-...; Nold v. Germany , no. 27250/02, 29 June 2006; Stork v. Germany , no.   38033/02, 13 July 2006; Klasen v.

Ms Siemons-Lesteberg also has German nationality. The applicants were born in 1973 and 1979 respectively and live in Mellinghausen in Germany. They are represented before the Court by Mr   L.

to take evidence from Jürgen in Germany.

  80450/17) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German

no. 16687/11, Fritz NUSSBAUM against Germany no. 25359/11, Philip and Heike REDEKER against Germany and no. 28919/11, Uta GLOECKNER against Germany STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants are German

#Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH contro Repubblica federale di Germania.#Domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale: Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main - Germania.

Schroeder KG v the Federal Republic of Germany.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main - Germany.#Tomato concentrates.#Case 40-72.

After having examined the application on 27 January and 19 February 1998, the German administrative authorities rejected the application, which decision was upheld by the German courts, the last time on

Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012; and Delfi AS , cited above, § 137).

Germany (application no. 19359/04)   COURT’S JUDGMENT CONCERNING RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF A PRISONER’S PREVENTIVE DETENTION BECOMES FINAL   The five-judge panel of the Grand Chamber, meeting

Germany - 4646/08 Judgment 24.11.2011 [Section V] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Individual measures Measures of a general character Preventive detention in Germany: no indication of measures

He was suspected of being willing to participate in or carry out a terrorist attack in Germany.

The decision was served on the applicants’ German counsel on 21 November 2006. B.

They hold both Austrian and German nationality since birth. Their father is a dual German and Swiss national, while their mother is of Austrian nationality.

They waive all further claims against the Federal Republic of Germany and/or the Land of Saxony and/or the City of Dresden arising from the facts of the present case. 3.

Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Sondang Frieda SIMATUPANG HERMANN 1965 German Berlin 2 Antje HRDINA 1960 German Berlin 3 Stephanie IHLE 1979 German Berlin 4 Helmut Wilfried

After German reunification, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) succeeded to that treaty pursuant to Article 12 of the German Unification Treaty ( Einigungsvertrag ) in conjunction with the proclamation

They had all been recognised as political refugees in Germany.