THE GERMAN STATE MINISTRY FOR CHECH AND MORAV, PRAGUE (1906) 1939 - 1945 (1965), inv. 1262, sig. 110-12/88

Page 42

English Translation

Deutsger heimatbund,Landsgaftsverein Ggerland 7S Studienrat Anton Krauß Gger Goethering 33/2 vinlendengt Alhaw Gger 20.3uni 1943 oftenepy seron ifeft huuar haun Duu bas S aasfektet:s Staatsfekretär,GS=Group leader ben Reicsprotekto Marlgermannjrank in Bohemia and Moravia. Eing.: 2 5 JUNE 1943 Prague 4 Gzerninpalais O E Jd mende mid today confidently to Dig with the request for your kindi= ge ginflussnahme in a matter concerning our deimat. It is fid about our "Beiräge gur Heimatforscung und Heimabpflege im Egerland".alfo um unferere alten Ggerländer Seimageitsgrift "Unser Ggerland" ("Our Gger Land"). a t and in its entirety for the national history of the Ggerland of unscathed berte is,fréheint since one year nigt more and should now be nidt now on un= abfehbare time at all nids more. The publication of the Zeitschrift, which is based on 19z9 three times in the drive, and was produced in the total circumference of 144 geites and in a wuflage of 1500 gtük ie deft, gave shan during the journey 1g4l as a result of Berhand=lungen with the Reigsfkrifttumskammer and the Berbande of the interpretive Beitschriftenverlager(seichspressekammerdinsStoden. In May 1942 murde endlic von der Metsschriftstumskamner mitligt the Yer edition of the jeitshrift in the bereine's bed (Supplement "Liberation Süein") and murden me zmed's Bapierguteilung to the Birtscaftsjtelle des deutsgen Budhandel. Although Diefe initially refused, we were able to do so, but then dog dae da e aa a vereines Sußetenland in Deutsgen deimatbund,gerrn Gauhauptmann Dr. Rreißl, erreiden, that the Bapier for the double booklet 2/3 of the year= ganges l9äl, which had been discussed with me indefsen, was mitigated. Bir maren now nad dem Bortlaute des Besceides("... As a result of the fact that the Court of First Instance held that the Commission had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, the Court held that, in the event of an infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, it was not necessary to take account of the circumstances of the case.