Good find. Still (see paragraph [106]), it seems to me (my French is not as good as it should be) that the generic point remains untouched: >Par ailleurs, le

Good find. Still (see paragraph [106]), it seems to me (my French is not as good as it should be) that the generic point remains untouched: >Par ailleurs, le paragraphe 29 n'autorise pas un huissier à interroger des témoIns comme bon lui semble. Il ordonne plutôt ... >Furthermore, paragraph 29 does not authorize a bailiff to examine witnesses as he sees fit. Rather, he directs ... Imagine that I have an Anton Piller order to find and seize for preservation something at a high risk of destruction, let's say all sugar in your house ;). I can ask you where you keep the sugar, biscuits, cakes, sweets, mints and lollipops, besides soda beverages and chocolate. (and if you refuse to respond you are passible to be held in contempt of the Court) I can also check whether you have hidden your sugar in the bathroom or in the bedroom. What I cannot ask you is whether you are member of a club of sugar addicts, and the name of all its members, where you bought those nice looking cupcakes, how much meat and bread do you eat everyday, etc. The scope of an Anton Piller order is just for presevation of evidence and specifically of evidence at high risk of destruction.