Polish dating belgium on line dating and match making services
 (2) Regarding the estate of Frau Gabriele von Ruffer, the application was withdrawn by a similar statement made at the hearing of February 5th, 1926; the Agent of the German Government, in a further statement made at the hearing of February 8th, 1926, attached certain reservations to this withdrawal, which reservations were placed on record, but which do not otherwise affect the case now before the Court. (3) Regarding the estates of the Georg Giesche's Erben Company, the application was in part withdrawn by a statement made by the Agent of the German Government at the hearing of February 8th, 1926, in so far as concerns the Mała Dabrowka estate and the properties situated in the commune of Katowice. When subsequently the Agents of the Polish Government stated that the circumstances which had led to this [p11] statement -that is to say, the withdrawal by the authority competent to deal with questions of liquidation of the notice of an intention to expropriate -in reality related exclusively to the Mała Dabrowka estate and not to the properties at Katowice, the Agent of the German Government confined himself to noting this statement.The operative part of this judgment runs as follows: "The Court, having heard both Parties, "I. (a) That Article 2 of the Polish law of July 14th, 1920, constitutes a measure of liquidation as concerns property, rights and interests acquired after November nth, 1918, and that Article 5 of the same law constitutes a liquidation of the contractual rights of the persons concerned; (b) that, should the decision in regard to point (a) be in the affirmative, the Polish Government in carrying out these liquidations has not acted in conformity with the provisions of Articles 92 and 297 of the Treaty of Versailles; [p7] 2.(1) In affaire I referred to in the plea filed by the Government of the Polish Republic: [p6] dismisses this plea; declares the Application to be admissible; and reserves it for judgment on the merits. (a) That the attitude of the Polish Government in regard to the Oberschlesische Stickstoffwerke and Bayerische Stickstoffwerke Companies was not in conformity with Article 6 and the following articles of the Geneva Convention; (b) should the decision in regard to point (a) be in the affirmative, the Court is requested to state what attitude should have been adopted by the Polish Government in regard to the Companies in question in order to conform with the above-mentioned provisions; 3.The Court, being of opinion that the position resulting from these various statements and declarations was insufficiently clear, decided to ask the Parties for the necessary explanations.The Agent of the German Government, in his reply, requested the Court "only to regard the Application as withdrawn in so far as the Mała Dabrowka estate was concerned" and to give judgment in regard to the properties at Katowice. The Agent of the Polish Government, in his reply on February 8th, 1926, after admitting that the Court had overruled the contention submitted by his Government in the proceedings upon the plea to the jurisdiction and had ruled that the notices possessed a definitive character, stated that, in order to simplify the argument, he left aside all these questions of form, withdrew the submission set out in the Rejoinder and agreed to argue the matter on the basis of the so-called subsidiary submission, that is to say, the submission formulated in the Reply. The German Government, during the oral proceedings, has withdrawn its application in so far as certain estates mentioned in submission No.  (1) As regards the estate of Frau Hedwig Voigt, the application was withdrawn by a statement made by the Agent of the German Government at the hearing of July 18th, 1925, after information had been supplied by the Polish Agent to the effect that the notification concerning this estate had been withdrawn.This statement was duly placed on record by the Court.
 The Court on August 25th, 1925, gave judgment on the preliminary objections made by Poland.set out as follows: "To give judgment to the following effect: (1) That the application both of Article 2 and of Article 5 of the law of July 14th, 1920, in Polish Upper Silesia, decreed by the law of June 16th, 1922, constitutes a measure of liquidation within the meaning of Article 6 and the following articles of the Convention of Geneva in the sense that, in so far as the above-mentioned articles of the Convention of Geneva authorize liquidation, that application must be accompanied by the consequences attached to it by the said Convention, in particular the entry into operation of Articles 92 and 297 of the Treaty of Versailles prescribed by the said Convention, and that, in so far as those articles do not authorize liquidation, that application is illicit.(2) (a) That the attitude of the Polish Government in regard to the Oberschlesische Stickstoffwerke and Bayerische Stickstoff-werke was not in conformity with Article 6 and the following articles of the Geneva Convention; (b) Should the decision in regard to point (a) be in the affirmative, the Court is requested to state what attitude should have been adopted by the Polish Government in regard to the Companies in question in order to conform with the above-mentioned provisions.  Before approaching the examination of the questions submitted to it in regard to this case, the Court thinks it well to draw attention to the following:  The Application sets out in two chapters the facts and allegations upon which the Applicant bases his submissions; the first chapter relates to submissions 1 and 2, whilst the second relates to submission 3. Having noted this, the Court considered separately the Polish submissions [p15] relating to "Affaire I" concerning the factory at Chorzw and those relating to the large rural estates. The Case of the German Government was filed on the date fixed.The Polish Government having, before the expiration of the time allowed for filing of its Counter-Case, requested additional time, the President granted this request and decided, in virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Article 33 of the Rules of Court, to postpone by one month the date fixed for the filing of the next document; the times thus expired as follows: For the filing of Counter-Cases by the Respondent: Saturday, November 28th, 1925; For the filing of Replies by the Applicant: Saturday, December 26th, 1925; For the filing of Rejoinders by the Respondent: Saturday, January 23rd, 1926.
On the other hand, the reply of the Polish Government to the corresponding request for information, shows that, by a letter dated March 22nd, 1926, the Central Liquidation Office at Warsaw informed the Giesche Company that the notice of intention to expropriate the estates belonging to that Company did not affect the property situated in the town of Katowice.