 The Luxembourg company claimed that it was impossible for them to be represented by a natural person in this legal process in France, as they were bound by Luxembourg law to be chaired by a board of directors of a collegial nature.On 23 May 2006, the advocate-general at the Court of Cassation, Francis Fréchèdehe, requested that both of these actions be dismissed.He assessed that Clearstream could have used the civil procedure, in which it is not mandatory to be represented by a natural person.