On the one hand, the applicant’s expert maintained that even if the properties were situated in a specific planning zone, they should be compared to similar plots of land sold outside that zone since their

  He considers that these decisions amount to discrimination as compared to civil servants in the German civil servants.

The court rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation.

These claims were rejected by courts at three levels of jurisdiction.

Nor have they shown that it was possible to lodge a compensation claim for a delay in enforcement.

The claim for this item is therefore rejected. C. Claim for an undertaking 15. Mrs.

Claims which finance social programmes for Holocaust survivors.

    On 21 March 2017 the Higher Administrative Court, acting upon the respondent’s cassation appeal, quashed the lower courts’ judgments and rejected the applicant’s claims.

    The Government pointed out that the applicant had not substantiated his related claims. 30.

He stated that if he was refused the certificate the German State would be liable for compensation claims. 12.

suivant : Sur le rapport de Mme le conseiller DESGRANGE, les observations de la société civile professionnelle PIWNICA et MOLINIE, avocat en la Cour, et les conclusions de Mme l'avocat général COMMARET

    The Government considered the claims unjustified and groundless.

Greffier lors des débats : Madame Charlotte COMBARET. Les parties ont été avisées que le prononcé de la décision aurait lieu par mise à disposition au greffe le 01 Septembre 2022.

ARRÊT Réputé contradictoire, Prononcé par mise à disposition au greffe le 02 Novembre 2023, Signé par Monsieur Jean-Wilfrid NOEL, Président et Madame Charlotte COMBARET, greffier auquel la minute

    On 21 February 2011 the District Court granted A.’s claim against twelve students; in respect of the eight others, counsel for A. had withdrawn the claims.

    The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.

In the meantime, in a letter dated 4   May 2017 and received by the Court on 15 May 2017, the applicant submitted his claims for just satisfaction, noting that the delay of the submission of his claims

  Consequently, on 8 October 1992, the court dismissed the case on the ground that the Treasury had failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of its claims.

Bodin-Hullin, rapporteur public, - les observations de Me Albisson, représentant Mme F... et autres requérants, - les observations de Me Perrin, représentant, la commune de Vénissieux, - et celles de Me Combaret