4063/04, § 46, 19 February 2009; Heinisch v. Germany , no. 28274/08, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Bucur and Toma v. Romania , no.   40238/02, § 93, 8 January 2013).

Heinrich, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. 3.

font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    Application No. 10802/84   Heinrich

The “ Lebensborn ” was a Nazi project created by Heinrich Himmler in 1935, with the aim of taking care of mothers and children who were deemed valuable from “a racial and genetic” point of view.

The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his family home and restitution has been refused. (9)     Christine Heinrich 15.

  Heinrich Vana, a lawyer practising in Vienna, and as from 8 June 1990 by Mr.   Holger Hoffmann, a lawyer practising in Bremen (Federal Republic of Germany).   3.

/1923 Hamburg German - 15 000 11,051.01   6506/10 * 21/01/2010   Helga Karin HENLE 02/10/1939 Steingaden German 2   818 336 16   931 16,627.27   6507/10* 21/01/2010   Heinrich

The programme consisted of a variety of items, for instance on the martial law in South Africa, on the debate on profit-sharing in Denmark and on the late German writer Heinrich Böll.

Russia , no. 29492/05, § 85, 26   February 2009, and Heinisch v.

, as in the case at hand, by private law, and that the State has a positive obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see   Heinisch

it is open to the competent State authorities to adopt measures intended to respond appropriately and without excess to defamatory accusations devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith (see Heinisch

the only person, or part of a small category of persons, aware of what is happening at work and is thus best placed to act in the public interest by alerting the employer or the public at large (see Heinisch

At the same time employees were expected to act in good faith and had a duty of loyalty and discretion towards their employers (see Heinisch v.

what is happening at work and is thus best placed to act in the public interest by alerting the employer or the public at large (see Guja , cited above, §§ 72 and 74, with further references, and Heinisch

Spain , no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000, and Heinisch v.   Germany , no. 28274/08, § 44, ECHR 2011).

    What follows is a quote from the case of Heinisch v. Germany (no.   28274/08, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) dealing with the question of “whistleblowing”: “B.

    In the judgments in the cases of Heinisch v. Germany (no. 28274/08, §   37, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and Bucur and Toma v. Romania (no.