Such statements had been all the more disproportionate as the claim for reimbursement had amounted to a mere 203 German marks (DEM).

Neither the European Patent Convention nor the German Patent Act exclude a patentee from applying under the other protection mechanism.

On 16 February 1942 during the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, the latter’s estate and castle in Opočno were confiscated by the occupying forces.

    The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.

The applicant is a military officer of the German Bundeswehr holding the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel ( Oberstleutnant ). On 27 May 2006 the applicant published an article in the journal “Ossietzky”.

normal; widows:0; 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 is a German

  The Commission based its negative view on the consideration that the Federal Republic of Germany as such could not, without specific provision, be held liable under German law for injuries of the

The German authorities had been called upon to weigh up a number of private and public interests against several competing rights.

  He cannot, therefore, be considered to have exhausted the remedies available to him under German law.

The German authorities had been called upon to weigh up a number of private and public interests against several competing rights.

ordering her to leave Germany, relied on the relevant provisions of the German Aliens Act.

The applicant was a citizen of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) who absconded to West Berlin in May 1988.

  COMPLAINTS           The applicants complain of the refusal of the German authorities to grant the second applicant a residence permit.

tax- payers had thus paid about 16 billion German marks for fakes.

  COMPLAINTS   The applicants complain of the decision of the German authorities to expel them from Germany.

xa0;   The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant, born in 1925, is a German

  von   Raumer, a lawyer practising in Berlin; the decision to give notice of the application to the German Government (“the Government”), represented by one of their Agents, Mr H.-J.

The authority considered that the public interest in the applicant’s exclusion from German territory outweighed his interest to remain.

  The applicant complains about German court decisions refusing his application for legal aid with a view to institute proceedings against his divorced wife, Mrs F.E.