Search result: 41 articles

x
Article

Access_open The ECHR and Private Intercountry Adoptions in Germany and the Netherlands: Lessons Learned from Campanelli and Paradiso v. Italy

Journal Family & Law, January 2021
Keywords Private intercountry adoptions, surrogacy, ECHR, UNCRC, the best interests of the child
Authors dr. E.C. Loibl
AbstractAuthor's information

    Within the past half century, a market in adoptable children has emerged. The imbalance between the demand for and the supply of adoptable children, combined with the large sums of Western money, incite greedy actors in poor countries to illegally obtain children for adoption. This renders intercountry adoption conducive to abuses. Private adoptions are particularly prone to abusive and commercial practices. Yet, although they violate both international and national law, German and Dutch family courts commonly recognize them. They argue that removing the child from the illegal adopters would not be compatible with the rights and best interests of the individual child concerned. In 2017, the ECtHR rendered a ground-breaking judgement in Campanelli and Paradiso v. Italy. In this case, the Court dealt with the question as to whether removing a child from the care of an Italian couple that entered into a surrogacy agreement with a Russian clinic, given that surrogacy is illegal in Italy, violated Article 8 ECHR. Contrary to previous case law, in which the ECtHR placed a strong emphasis on the best interests of the individual child concerned, the Court attached more weight to the need to prevent disorder and crime by putting an end to the illegal situation created by the Italian couple and by discouraging others from bypassing national laws. The article argues that considering the shifting focus of the ECtHR on the prevention of unlawful conduct and, thus, on the best interests of children in general, the German and Dutch courts’ failure to properly balance the different interests at stake in a private international adoption by mainly focusing on the individual rights and interests of the children is difficult to maintain.

    ---

    In de afgelopen halve eeuw is er een markt voor adoptiekinderen ontstaan. De disbalans tussen de vraag naar en het aanbod van adoptiekinderen, in combinatie met grote sommen westers geld, zet hebzuchtige actoren in arme landen ertoe aan illegaal kinderen te verkrijgen voor adoptie. Dit maakt interlandelijke adoptie bevorderlijk voor misbruik. Particuliere adoptie is bijzonder vatbaar voor misbruik en commerciële praktijken. Ondanks het feit dat deze privé-adopties in strijd zijn met zowel internationaal als nationaal recht, worden ze door Duitse en Nederlandse familierechtbanken doorgaans wel erkend. Daartoe wordt aangevoerd dat het verwijderen van het kind van de illegale adoptanten niet verenigbaar is met de rechten en belangen van het individuele kind in kwestie. In 2017 heeft het EHRM een baanbrekende uitspraak gedaan in de zaak Campanelli en Paradiso t. Italië. In deze zaak behandelde het Hof de vraag of het verwijderen van een kind uit de zorg van een Italiaans echtpaar dat een draagmoederschapsovereenkomst met een Russische kliniek is aangegaan, in strijd is met artikel 8 EVRM, daarbij in ogenschouw genomen dat draagmoederschap in Italië illegaal is. In tegenstelling tot eerdere jurisprudentie, waarin het EHRM sterk de nadruk legde op de belangen van het individuele kind, hechtte het Hof meer gewicht aan de noodzaak om de openbare orde te bewaken en criminaliteit te voorkomen door een einde te maken aan de illegale situatie die door het Italiaanse echtpaar was gecreëerd door onder andere het omzeilen van nationale wetten. Het artikel stelt dat, gezien de verschuiving in de focus van het EHRM op het voorkomen van onwettig gedrag en dus op het belang van kinderen in het algemeen, de Duitse en Nederlandse rechtbanken, door met name te focussen op de individuele rechten en belangen van de kinderen, er niet in slagen om de verschillende belangen die op het spel staan ​​bij een particuliere internationale adoptie goed af te wegen.


dr. E.C. Loibl
Elvira Loibl is Assistant Professor Criminal Law and Criminology, Universiteit Maastricht.
Article

Hungarian Territorial Changes and Nationality Issues Following World War I

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2020
Keywords nationality, state succession, right of option, rights of citizenship in a commune, Trianon Peace Treaty
Authors Mónika Ganczer
AbstractAuthor's information

    In the aftermath of World War I, Hungary had to relinquish approximately two-thirds of its former territory and over half of its population under the terms of the Trianon Peace Treaty of 4 June 1920. This inevitably brought about a change in the nationality of persons pertaining to territories transferred to other states. However, the interpretation and implementation of articles concerning nationality were highly ambiguous. For example, the rights of citizenship in a commune, the so-called pertinenza, was not defined in the peace treaty, although the determination of affected persons and beneficiaries of the right of option was explicitly based on that particular criterion. Hence, the fate of these individuals largely depended on the domestic legal regulation and the subjective treaty interpretations of successor states. The application of treaty provisions was not always in conformity with the text, which sometimes proved advantageous, other times disadvantageous for the affected persons. This study seeks to explore the theoretical background, the past and present interpretation, the practical application and the judicial treatment of articles concerning nationality in the Trianon Peace Treaty. The paper also exposes the major problems and shortcomings of the Treaty and makes suggestions for an appropriate wording and adequate interpretation of relevant treaty provisions. Furthermore, in order to provide a full picture of how territorial changes following World War I affected the nationality of millions of individuals, the study takes into consideration other contemporary international instruments with a bearing on the change of nationality or its consequences.


Mónika Ganczer
Mónika Ganczer: associate professor of law, Széchenyi István University, Győr; research fellow, Eötvös Loránd Research Network, Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies, Budapest.
Article

Independence and Implementation

In Harmony and in Tension

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2019
Keywords Law Commission, law reform, legislation, independence, implementation
Authors Matthew Jolley
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article examines the factors that have influenced the independence of the Law Commission of England and Wales and the implementation of its recommendations. It discusses innovations in Parliamentary procedure for Law Commission Bills, the Protocol between Government and the Law Commission; and the requirement for the Lord Chancellor to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of the Law Commission’s proposals. It makes the case that the relationship between independence and implementation is complex: at times the two pull in opposite directions, and at times they support each other.


Matthew Jolley
Matthew Jolley is Head of Legal Services and Head of the Property, Family and Trust Law Team at the Law Commission of England and Wales. This article is written in a personal capacity – with thanks to Christine Land, Rachel Preston and Sarah Smith for their assistance with background research.
Human Rights Practice Reviews

Albania

Journal East European Yearbook on Human Rights, Issue 1 2019
Authors Anisia Mandro LLM
Author's information

Anisia Mandro LLM
Anisia Mandro (European Union Law - LLM), Legal Researcher and Legal Adviser in the area of competition law, data protection, and human rights; Consultant in approximation of national legislation with EU acquis Communautaire.
Article

Judging Reformers and Reforming Judges

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1 2019
Keywords law reform, common law, judges, United Kingdom Supreme Court, legal reasoning
Authors James Lee
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article examines the practice and limits of judicial law reform. In particular, I consider the question of when initiation of a reform is appropriate for the judiciary as opposed to the legislature, an issue which has been a matter of controversy amongst the Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court. This question is assessed in the light of the institutional and constitutional competences of the courts, particularly with respect to the structure of common law reasoning. It is also argued that it is important to have regard to perspectives of the relevant judges, in understanding the individual and collective approaches to the judicial development of the law.


James Lee
James Lee is Reader in English Law and PC Woo Research Fellow 2016-2017 at The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London, and Associate Academic Fellow of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple; Senior Visiting Fellow, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, University of New South Wales; and Visiting Professor, Hong Kong University. I am grateful to Enrico Albanesi, Mark Lunney, Jonathan Teasdale and all those who attended the Law Reform Workshop at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in November 2017 and a Kirby Seminar at the School of Law at the University of New England at which drafts of this article were presented. I thank both PC Woo & Co and the Faculty of Law at UNSW for the generous support for the project of which this article forms part. All views, and any errors, are my own.

Catherine Rossi
Catherine Rossi is Professor, École de travail social et de criminologie, Laval University, Québec.

Serge Charbonneau
Serge Charbonneau is Director, Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec. Contact author: scharbonneau@rojaq.qc.ca.
Article

Access_open The Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights’ Consensus-Based Analysis in Recent Judgments Concerning Equal Marriage Rights

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 3 2017
Keywords same-sex marriage, gay marriage, European consensus, margin of appreciation, consensus-based analysis by the ECtHR
Authors Masuma Shahid
AbstractAuthor's information

    This contribution assesses the consensus-based analysis and reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in recent judgments concerning equal marriage rights and compares it to the Court’s past jurisprudence on European consensus and the margin of appreciation awarded to Member States regarding the issue of equal marriage rights. The contribution aims to analyse whether there is a parallel to be seen between the rapid global trend of legalisation of same-sex marriage and the development or evolution of the case law of the ECtHR on the same topic. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Court’s consensus-based analysis is problematic for several reasons and provides possible alternative approaches to the balancing of the Court between, on the one hand, protecting rights of minorities (in this case same-sex couples invoking equal marriage rights) under the European Convention on Human Rights and, on the other hand, maintaining its credibility, authority and legitimacy towards Member States that might disapprove of the evolving case law in the context of same-sex relationships. It also offers insights as to the future of European consensus in the context of equal marriage rights and ends with some concluding remarks.


Masuma Shahid
Lecturer, Department of International and European Union Law, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.

Anita Rozália Nagy-Nádasdi
PhD researcher at Pázmány Péter Catholic University Faculty of Law and Political Sciences.

Viktor Rák
Legal advisor of the Hungarian National Chamber of Civil Law Notaries.

Tamás Balogh
Legal advisor of the Hungarian National Chamber of Civil Law Notaries.
Article

Access_open Formerly cohabiting parents and parenting plans: Who makes the effort?

Journal Family & Law, June 2016
Authors Simon de Bruijn Msc, dr. Anne-Rigt Poortman and Prof. dr. ir Tanja van der Lippe
AbstractAuthor's information

    When the Promotion of Continued Parenting and Proper Divorce Act came into force on March 2009 both married and cohabiting Dutch parents of minor children were obliged to draw up a parenting plan when they separate. Parenting plans are not enforceable for cohabiters, however. Using data from the New Families in the Netherlands survey, we examine how many former cohabiters create a parenting plan and how this compares to the number of verbal or no arrangements. We expect that child, parents and relationship characteristics are important for the likelihood that a parenting plan is constructed. Results show that more than half of former cohabiters create a parenting plan. Furthermore, former cohabiters are more likely to draw up a parenting plan if they consult a legal practitioner during their separation process. In addition, the younger the youngest child is, the more likely that former cohabiters will create a parenting plan or make verbal arrangements rather than no arrangements. That is also true for higher educated households and if they opt for residential co-parenting after divorce. Former cohabiters in a high-conflict situation are less likely to develop a parenting plan than make no arrangements.


Simon de Bruijn Msc
Simon de Bruijn is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Sociology and Research School (ICS) of Utrecht University. His research interests include divorce and post-divorce arrangements.

dr. Anne-Rigt Poortman
Anne-Rigt Poortman is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology and Research School (ICS) of Utrecht University. She received her Ph.D. at Utrecht University in 2002. Her main research interests are divorce and separation, new relationship types and legal aspects of partner relationships.

Prof. dr. ir Tanja van der Lippe
Tanja van der Lippe is a Professor of Sociology of Households and Employment Relations at the Department of Sociology and Research School (ICS) of Utrecht University. She is the head of the Department of Sociology and research director of ICS Utrecht. Her research interests are in the area of work-family linkages in Dutch and other societies.

    This report discusses the interesting remarks and conclusions made by the speakers at the ERA seminar, ‘Recent Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Family Law Matters’, which took place in Strasbourg on 11-12 February 2016. The report starts with a brief discussion on the shifting notion of ‘family life’ in the case law of the ECtHR, then turns to best interests of the child in international child abduction cases, the Court’s recognition of LGBT rights and finally the spectrum of challenges regarding reproductive rights in the Court’s case law. The overarching general trend is that the Court is increasingly faced with issues concerning non-traditional forms of family and with issues caused by the internationalisation of families. How this is seen in the Court’s recent case law and how it effects the various areas of family law is discussed in this report.


Charlotte Mol LL.B.
Charlotte Mol is a Legal Research Master student at the University of Utrecht, where she specializes in family law and private international law. She has assisted the Commission on European Family Law with the editing of the comparative study on informal relationships. As a guest student she visited the University of Antwerp for two months, where she researched the best interests of the child in international child abduction cases in collaboration with, and under the supervision of, Prof. Thalia Kruger. She holds a European Law School LL.B. from Maastricht University.
ECJ Court Watch

EFTA Court 16 December 2015, case E-5/15 (M’bye), working time

Matja Kumba T M’bye and Others – v – Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet, Norwegian case*

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 2 2016
Keywords Working time
Abstract

    An 84-hour working week imposed on resident therapists at a care home may in certain circumstances be compatible with Directive 2003/88.

    This contribution provides an introduction to the main theme’s that are discussed in micro-, meso- and macroeconomics relating to family law. The occasion was a closed international expert seminar organized by RETHINKIN. (www.rethinkin.eu), a Scientific Research Network financed by the Research Foundation Flanders. The seminar concerned the compensation of household production between partners on the one hand, and intergenerational care for the elderly on the other. A report on the legal aspects is also available on this forum. This contribution first situates the economics of family in general, before discussing the main functions of practicing the economics of family law: (a) avoiding legislative mistakes, (b) using incentives to encourage altruistic behaviour, (c) using disincentives to discourage opportunistic behaviour and finally, (d) applying family economics as a benchmark for protective measures. It is concluded that employing the economics of family law encounters some difficulties, but that the possibilities it offers for legal development outweigh the difficulties.
    Deze bijdrage biedt een inleiding op de voornaamste thema’s die aan bod komen in de micro-, meso- en macro-familierechtseconomie. Aanleiding was een besloten internationaal expertenseminar dat werd georganiseerd door RETHINKIN. (www.rethinkin.eu), een wetenschappelijke onderzoeksgemeenschap gefinancierd door het Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek - Vlaanderen. Dat seminar betrof de compensatie van huishoudelijke productie tussen partners enerzijds en intergenerationele zorg voor ouderen anderzijds. Een verslag van het juridische gedeelte is ook op dit forum beschikbaar. Deze bijdrage situeert eerst de familie-economie in het algemeen, vooraleer in te gaan op de belangrijkste functies van de beoefening van defamilierechtseconomie: (a) het voorkomen van verkeerde wetgevende keuzen, (b) het aanmoedigen in de wetgeving van altruïstisch gedrag, (c) het ontmoedigen in de wetgeving van opportunistisch gedrag en ten slotte (d) de onzichtbare hand als opmaat voor een minimale wetgevende bescherming. De conclusie luidt dat de beoefening van de familierechtseconomie op sommige moeilijkheden stuit, maar dat de mogelijkheden ervan voor een goede rechtsontwikkeling meer gewicht in de schaal leggen.


Prof. dr. Frederik Swennen
Frederik Swennen is a senior lecturer at the University of Antwerp and an attorney at the Brussels Bar.
Article

‘Living in Sin’: A Reform Proposal for Financial Relief Following Cohabitation Breakdown

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2015
Keywords cohabitation, financial relief, family trusts, common law marriage
Authors Luke Tattersall
AbstractAuthor's information

    The number of adults choosing to cohabit has increased by over 67% since 1991. Despite such a dramatic shift in social norms, the law governing financial relief upon relationship breakdown remains inept to handle the significant increase in cohabitants. This article examines how the current system of family trusts constitutes an archaic and inadequate means of dividing cohabitants’ assets. The law of trusts fails to reflect the subtleties of personal relationships, often resulting in financial injustice. The author goes on to consider the notion of common law marriage, highlighting how despite attempts by both the government and policy makers to dispel the concept it nevertheless remains prevalent throughout the United Kingdom. The core counterargument to extending financial relief is that it would undermine the institution of marriage and obscure the boundaries between cohabitant and spouse. This article critically examines this claim, adopting cross-jurisdictional analysis by considering the experiences of Scotland, Ireland and Australia where cohabitants have greater financial rights before concluding that the argument fails to stand up to scrutiny. The author ends by advancing a series of reforms designed to vindicate cohabitants, resulting in a fairer distribution of assets and bringing legal recognition to the United Kingdom’s largest growing family unit.


Luke Tattersall
Luke Tattersall is a trainee-barrister and Research Assistant in Law at Durham University. All opinions, errors and omissions are solely those of the author.

    This article explores the politics of international criminal justice and argues that the International Criminal Court is a lieu of staged performance where actors deploy their political narratives. Using the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire before the ICC and focusing on the pre-trial phase, I contend that the defendants Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé project a performance and deploy political narratives that are the extension of the politics of the Ivorian crisis, which make the Court the quintessential arena where domestic and international politics cohabit with law and rules of procedure.


Oumar Ba
Oumar Ba is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Florida.
Article

Pursuing the Best Interest of Children in Non-Traditional Families

A Comparative Overview

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2015
Keywords best interest of the child, equality, non-traditional families, new bills, comparative analysis
Authors Denise Amram
AbstractAuthor's information

    The need to build a legal paradigm corresponding to the current evolution of society is one of the most important challenges that family lawyers are facing in the last years. In this regard, this paper illustrates the new Italian, French, and Irish reforms aimed at pursuing the best interest of the child within non-traditional families.


Denise Amram
Postdoc researcher in Comparative Private Law, DIRPOLIS Department – Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e Perfezionamento Sant’Anna – Pisa, Italy and Italian Qualified Solicitor.
Article

Access_open Samenlevingsovereenkomsten in de notariële praktijk

Journal Family & Law, November 2014
Authors Petra Kuik, Wendy Schrama and Prof. dr. Leon Verstappen
Abstract

    In deze bijdrage worden de resultaten van een empirisch onderzoek dat in 2013 is verricht naar de inhoud van gemaakte samenlevingsovereenkomsten gepresenteerd. De beroepsgroep die zich met het maken van samenlevingsovereenkomsten bezig houdt - het notariaat - is bevraagd over deze praktijk aan de hand van een digitale vragenlijst. Daarmee is het qua opzet een verkennend onderzoek, dat een eerste beeld geeft van de notariële praktijk. In deze bijdrage worden de resultaten van een empirisch onderzoek dat in 2013 is verricht naar de inhoud van gemaakte samenlevingsovereenkomsten gepresenteerd. De beroepsgroep die zich met het maken van samenlevingsovereenkomsten bezig houdt - het notariaat - is bevraagd over deze praktijk aan de hand van een digitale vragenlijst. Daarmee is het qua opzet een verkennend onderzoek, dat een eerste beeld geeft van de notariële praktijk. De inhoud van de doorsnee samenlevingsovereenkomst verschilt aanzienlijk van die van huwelijkse voorwaarden. Bedingen waaruit vermogensrechtelijke solidariteit tussen ongehuwd samenwonenden blijkt (inkomens- of vermogensverrekening of alimentatiebedingen), komen slechts zeer beperkt voor in samenlevingsovereenkomsten, terwijl die juist in huwelijkse voorwaarden zeer frequent voorkomen. Ook op andere onderdelen verschaft dit onderzoek interessante bevindingen. Nader onderzoek is gewenst om meer inzicht te krijgen in de praktijk van het maken van samenlevingsovereenkomsten. --- In this paper, the authors present an empirical research on the content of cohabitation contracts in the Netherlands, conducted in 2013. The legal professionals who mostly deal with cohabitation contracts - the notaries - have been asked to fill in a digital questionnaire. The format of this research is exploratory, painting a first picture of legal practice on making cohabitation contracts. The content of the average cohabitation contract differs very much compared to the content of the average marriage contract. Clauses that express solidarity between cohabitants (sharing income or property values or maintenance) are rare in cohabitation contracts, whereas they are rather popular in matrimonial property contracts. Further research is necessary to gain more insight into the legal practice of making cohabitation contracts.


Petra Kuik

Wendy Schrama

Prof. dr. Leon Verstappen
Article

Access_open Unity in Multiplicity: Shared Cultural Understandings on Marital Life in a Damascus Catholic and Muslim Court

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 3/4 2013
Keywords Syria, personal status law, Eastern Catholic law, patriarchal family, marital obligations
Authors Esther Van Eijk Ph.D.
AbstractAuthor's information

    Family relations in Syria are governed by a plurality of personal status laws and courts. This plurality manifests itself on a variety of levels, including statutory, communal and individual. In this article, the author argues that, albeit this plurality, Syrian personal status law is also characterised by the prevalence of shared, gendered norms and views on marital life. Based on fieldwork conducted in a Catholic and a shar’iyya personal status courts in Damascus in 2009, the author examines the shared cultural understandings on marital relationships that were found in these courts, and as laid down – most importantly – in the respective Catholic and Muslim family laws. The article maintains that the patriarchal family model is preserved and reinforced by the various personal status laws and by the various actors which operated in the field of personal status law. Finally, two Catholic case studies are presented and analysed to demonstrate the importance and attachment to patriarchal gender norms in the Catholic first instance court of Damascus.


Esther Van Eijk Ph.D.
Esther Van Eijk is a postdoc researcher at Maastricht University, The Netherlands. She recently defended (September 2013) her Ph.D. thesis entitled ‘Family Law in Syria: A Plurality of Laws, Norms, and Legal Practices’ at Leiden University, the Netherlands. This study is based on her PhD fieldwork (including interviews and participant observation) conducted in March-April 2008, and October 2008-July 2009 in Syria.
Book Review

A Whole Image or a Few Pieces of Mosaic?

A Comment on the Monograph of Miklós Király: Unity and Diversity – The Cultural Effects of the Law of the European Union

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2013
Authors Bartha Ildikó
Author's information

Bartha Ildikó
Ildikó Bartha is an assistant professor of European law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Debrecen. Her research primarily focuses on the external relations of the European Union, specifically on the treatymaking competence of the EU. She also has an interest in EU internal market law, and the relationship between economic freedoms and fundamental rights.

    D'après le Code civil, et ce dè s son origine, la séparation du couple marié peut donner lieu à une obligation légale de payer au conjoint, ou à l'ancien conjoint, une pension censée couvrir ses besoins. En dehors du mariage, point de lien alimentaire prévu par la loi. Depuis 1804, deux évolutions sociales majeures ont cependant changé le visage de la vie de couple. D'un côté, elle ne passe plus nécessairement par le mariage. D'un autre côté, seule sa dimension affective est censée lui donner sens, ce qui la rend éminemment fragile. La question se pose dè s lors de savoir si le lien alimentaire qui existe actuellement en droit belge entre conjoints désunis répond encore de maniè re adéquate et pertinente aux modes de fonctionnement de l'économie conjugale.
    ---
    According to the Civil code, and in view of its development, the separation of a married couple can give rise to a legal obligation to pay maintenance to the other spouse, or ex-spouse, in order to cover his or her needs. In contrast, outside marriage, no statutory maintenance is available. However, since 1804, two major social evolutions have changed the way of life of couples. On the one hand, maintenance no longer flows inevitably from marriage. On the other hand, only the ‘love’ dimension of a relationship supports the provision of maintenance, which makes this claim eminently fragile.
    The question then arises as to whether the maintenance between separated spouses which is presently provided for under Belgian law still adequately and appropriately serves the functioning of the conjugal economy.
    In addition, the absence of maintenance rights for unmarried couples also raises questions. The contribution proposes a reconsideration of the right to maintenance between all couples, married or not, on the basis of other justifications, in particular the solidarity which couples establish during their shared lives.


Dr. Nathalie Dandoy
Nathalie Dandoy is lecturer at the catholic University of Louvain. She is member of the research centre of Family Law (Cefap-UCL). Her main research area concerns the maintenance rights between family members. She is member of editorial committee of Revue trimestrielle de droit familial and Journal des Juges de paix et de police.
Showing 1 - 20 of 41 results
« 1 3
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.