593 du Code de procédure pénale ; "en ce que l'arrêt attaqué a déclaré Nathalie X... coupable de vol ; "aux motifs que, sur le vol, à supposer que le fichier ait été constitué avant la prise de gérance

Y..., les conclusions de M. de Caigny, avocat général, et après en avoir délibéré conformément à la loi ; Sur le moyen unique : Attendu que la société Solotel a donné en location-gérance un hôtel

The applicants are the owners of special social bonds ( Sozialpfandbriefe ) that the German Government issued in the 1950s.

co-accused tried separately: Article 6 §   2 applicable ; no violation Facts – The applicant was the founder of a Turkish TV station whose programmes were broadcast in Turkey and Germany and the

Two series of photographs, published in German magazines in 1993 and 1997, had been the subject of litigation in the German courts that had led to leading judgments of the Federal Court of Justice in 1995

habitually resident in Germany, the German courts therefore having jurisdiction to hear any custody proceedings. 12 .

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

  He entered the territory of Germany in August 1992 and applied for asylum.

  Mr Stocké claimed to be the victim of collusion between the German authorities and Mr Köster for the purpose of bringing him back to the Federal Republic of Germany against his will with a view

orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  THE FACTS   Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows:   The Applicant states that he is a German

Germany , no. 6281/13, §§ 59-65 and 77, 2 June 2016; Kronfeldner v. Germany , no. 21906/09, §§ 78-80, 19 January 2012; B   v.   Germany , no. 61272/09, §§ 78-80, 19 April 2012; and Glien v.

In order to resolve conflicts in a socially acceptable way and to achieve an enduring legal order in Germany, the German Parliament decided in principle to restore the property to the former owners in

This conclusion was not altered by the fact that the applicant was a German national living in Germany who, had he been employed, would have worked in Germany.

Germany did not require a different point of view, because German courts were not bound by the decisions of that Court.

Under the terms of the Treaty, the Property Act was to continue to subsist in the unified Germany after the unification of the two German States on 3   October   1990.

lives in Großbottwar, Germany.

prenant des décisions non conformes à l'objet social et portant atteinte aux intérêts des entreprises, en particulier en ordonnant le financement d'une cuisine à la place d'une société CES dont le gérant

, of a gift made to a religious association: inadmissible The applicant is a religious association formed in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in February 1990.