In 2006 the latter left Germany to take her daughter on holiday to Lithuania but never came back.

Thus, the German Embassy had tried to hand the writ over to the applicant at the end of his interrogation in the German Embassy during the criminal proceeding, but he had refused to accept it himself and

The applicant and her husband went to Germany in 1991. The husband was granted refugee status but the applicant’s own application for asylum was refused.

M., the applicant's son-in-law, resident in Germany.

From the applicant’s point of view the actions or inactions of the German KFOR contingent fell within the jurisdiction of Germany under Article 1 of the Convention, since the German contingent exercised

into Dutch of an official German police record describing the finding of fifteen packages containing small tablets in the crankcase of a motor car engine found in a car breaker’s yard in Germany; i) &

font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 December 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12380/18 TRADE UNION OF GERMAN

Germany - 56132/00 Judgment 23.7.2002 [Section III] Article 8 Expulsion Granting of residence permit on humanitarian grounds: struck out Facts: The applicant, a Turkish national, came to Germany in 1988

:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 9 May 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67976/11 Muzzafer DEMIR against Germany

European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 27 December 1984 by Mr Aziz Akdogan against the Federal Republic of Germany

Germany ([GC], no. 9300/07, 26 June 2012) the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts did not sufficiently take his ethical objections into account.

pending a final decision on his request: inadmissible   The applicant, a Nigerian national, entered Germany in 1998 and requested asylum.

    On 16 October 1991 the governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Poland concluded an agreement on the basis of which the German government declared that, prompted

Germany (dec.), no. 58388/00, 28 September 2000; and Dragan v. Germany (dec.), no. 33743/03, 7 October 2004).

paid by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

X... se soit livré à des opérations commerciales pour son compte personnel ou ait exercé la gestion de fait de la société Secotec, dont sa femme avait été nommée gérante et dans laquelle il ne détenait

était évalué à 1 700 000 francs et que, du fait du locataire-gérant, ce fonds de commerce avait perdu toute valeur, demandant la nomination d'un expert afin d'apprécier la valeur du fonds à la date de

faute de dissimulation, la prescription avait commencé à courir à compter de la présentation des comptes sociaux et qu'en outre, Claude A..., cadre commercial dans la société depuis 1992, et nommé gérant

salarié d'une succursale de maison d'alimentation de détail et que les parties s'opposaient devant elle sur la qualification du contrat de gérance salariée invoqué par Mme X... ; qu'en statuant comme