Referring to the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Hoffmann-Laroche & Co. AG v.

CONSTRUCTION SA SWISS LIFE ASSURANCES Société MUTUELLE DES ARCHITECTES FRANCAIS (MAF) Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à : Me CHERFILS Me COUTELIER Me JOURDAN Me RUIZ Me FILHOL-FERIAUD Me RAFFIN

by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Monika and Sascha Freilinger and Hildegard Hofmann

décision suivante   : EN FAIT     La requête est introduite par Fatma Ayten Yagtzilar, Mustafa Aykut Yagtzilar, Yakut Yagtzilar, Nermin Baykal, Bahadir Atik, Feriha Neriman Atik, Alan Hosman

Par des mémoires enregistrés le 15 décembre 2020 et le 21 octobre 2022, S L H, représentée par la SCP Raffin et associés, conclut : 1°) à titre principal, au rejet de la requête et au rejet des appels

shy and irritable, they perceived the surrounding world and natural phenomena in the way the ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching presents it (the children were afraid of the Worldwide Flood when it would rain

This case raises no question of democratic accountability. ... On the other hand, efficient administration and the sovereignty of Parliament are very relevant.

    On 6 November 1996, the applicant changed his name to von Hoffen through adoption. 8.

   The Government raise a preliminary objection that the application is an abuse of the right of petition.

Italy (10427/02) judgment of 21 November 2006   Von Hoffen v. Liechtenstein (5010/04) judgment of 27 July 2006   Vaivada v.

21/05/1967 Essen German - 2 756 2,030.8   6475/10 * 20/01/2010   Knut-Peter HOFFMANN 02/03/1957 Grosspösna German - 15 972 11,766.41   6477/10* 21/01/2010   Willi Ernst SAUCK 16/03

Unlike an inspector [in a planning case], whose position was described by Lord Hoffman [in R. v.

Paragraph 2 of the Circular advises that the Secretary of State will “maintain his policy of, in general, only calling in for his own determination those applications which raise planning issues of more

    The following history of the Widow's Pension (“WP”) is taken from Lord Hoffmann's speech in R. v.

After the agreements were concluded both witnesses were interrogated several times by police officers Homan and Vreeswijk.

Justice Hoffman stated that it was necessary "in the interests of justice" for the purposes of Section 10 of the 1981 Act for the source's identity to be disclosed to enable X Ltd. to bring proceedings

“Material” evidence was defined as evidence which could be seen, “on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution: (1) to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case; (2) to raise or possibly raise

By the British Rail judgment (the Young, James and Webster v.

Sie, meine Damen und Herren, hoffen auf den Sieg der Lüge über die Wahrheit. ... ”) 6.