Germany cited above, § 48). 41.

Germany , no.   19359/04, 17   December 2009, Information Note no.   125; and three judgments of 13   January 2011: Kallweit v.   Germany , no.   17792/07; Mautes v.

} .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)52 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Kaemena and Thöneböhn against Germany

The hearing set for 18/04/2008 had to be cancelled as the applicant had left Germany before the summons was sent.

Germany (no.

The Regional Court noted that German law provided for different categories of specialisation.

    Germany ............................................. 17 (a)     Investigation by the German prosecuting authorities ..... 17 (b)     German parliamentary inquiry ....

    Rules of succession applicable following German reunification 19.

about the destruction of Germany as a result of the immigration of foreigners.

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, relating to the application lodged by Albert Grandrath, a German

GERMANY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday 1 July 2008 at 9 a.m. , on the admissibility and merits in the case of Mücke v. Germany (application no.

  3545/04) 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

    Did the facts of which the applicant complains in the present case occur within the jurisdiction of Germany within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention in all respects?

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr. Hans-Jörg Behrens from the Federal Ministry of Justice.

During social law proceedings concerning the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights in Germany with regard to the time which she had spent in the United Kingdom to bring up her son, the applicant

GERMANY   A Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared admissible the application lodged in the case of Gäfgen v. Germany (application no. 22978/05).

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

text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)126 [1] Hellig against Germany

font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 June 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 8819/16 Hans-Wilhelm SAURE against Germany