{"id":599074,"date":"2026-04-18T23:38:30","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T21:38:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/"},"modified":"2026-04-18T23:38:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T21:38:30","slug":"anham-hussain","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/","title":{"rendered":"Anham Hussain"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This appeal is dismissed. Subject matter: main occupation rule for restricted licences; financial standing. Case law referred to:MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd (2012\/030). REASONS FOR DECISION Traffic Commissioner\u2019s decision 1. On 4 January 2023, the Appellant applied to the Traffic Commissioner for a restricted public service vehicle (PSV) operator\u2019s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (\u201c1981 Act\u201d). The application sought authority to operate a single vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers and specified \u00a33,100 as the required amount of finance (it is not disputed that this was the amount required in order for a restricted PSV licence holder operating a single vehicle to demonstrate financial standing). In response to the application form\u2019s questions about the \u2018main occupation\u2019 rules, the Appellant wrote: \u201cI have been an interpreter since 2009 and I do about 15-20 hours of interpreting and sometimes 30 when it\u2019s busy. Also I am a self-employed painter and decorator. I want to do the school run in the weekdays so I need an operators licence so I can balance my work whilst helping people.\u201d 2. The application enclosed a copy of the Appellant\u2019s personal bank account statement, dated 7 January 2022 (i.e. about a year before the date of the application), which showed a balance of \u00a33,974.56. 3. On 17 January 2023, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) informed the Appellant that his application was incomplete. The address specified on the bank statement differed from the operator\u2019s address and the Appellant was asked to explain why. The OTC also requested a range of information related to the \u2018main occupation\u2019 rule. 4. The Appellant\u2019s letter in response included this statement: \u201cThe reason why I am applying for the PSV licence is to completely get rid of the handyman and taxi job\u201d. 5. On 1 March 2023, the OTC wrote to the Appellant to inform him that his application remained incomplete. The OTC again requested information relevant to the main occupation rule. Their letter included the following warning: \u201cThis letter is intended as a final attempt to resolve these issues by correspondence and you must now respond in full by no later than 15\/03\/2023. If on that date the application remains incomplete, it will be refused.\u201d 6. The Appellant\u2019s written response of 15 March 2023 included the following statement: \u201cfor school run\u2026monthly I will get \u00a31200 and yearly I will get \u00a310800 because there is only nine months in the academic year for the school run\u2026For NHS, I will earn approximately 9000\u2026I will get\u2026\u00a32880 a year for handyman.\u201d 7. On 24 March 2023, the OTC sent the following email to the Appellant: \u201cI have just carried out final checks before this application is submitted to the Traffic Commissioner for consideration, it has been noted that the savings account bank statement that you provided is dated 07 January 2022, this cannot be taken into consideration as it is not a recent bank statement. Please provide a copy of an original or verified bank statement in the name of the Sole trader applying for this PSV operator licence, the last date of which must be within two months prior to the date of this email 24\/03\/2023. The bank statement should show that you have sufficient funds available in the sole trader name to meet the financial requirement for the type and size of licence applied for (\u00a33,100). A response to this email with the requested information should be provided to this office before the date of 27\/03\/2023.\u201d 8. The email of 24 March 2023 also included the following standard text: \u201cPlease upload any application related documents through your VOL user account. Only send documents by email if you are unable to use the self-service system.\u201d 9. On 24 April 2023, the Traffic Commissioner refused the Appellant\u2019s application, giving the following reasons for doing so: \u201cThe financial information provided was not acceptable because the bank statement was dated January 2022, a recent bank statement was requested by email on 24 March 2023 and no response was received with a bank statement that meets the requirements. Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate that you meet the requirements of Section 14ZA(2)(c) of [the 1981 Act].\u201d 10. In response, the Appellant informed the OTC that, on 25 March 2023, he emailed them \u2018screenshots\u2019 of more recent bank statements. The Appellant was informed by an OTC official that screenshots were not acceptable and either originals or certified copies of recent bank statements were required. The OTC case file recounts that the Appellant informed an official that he \u201ccould order one that would be received within five days\u201d but this did not materialise before the Commissioner refused the application. 11. An internal OTC memorandum advised that, if the screenshot bank statements were accepted, the Appellant would meet the financial standing requirement for the licence sought. However, the memorandum went on: \u201cthe applicant is far from meeting the main occupation criteria, the main occupation income will be \u00a3770 after deductions, and the PSV income will be \u00a31,200 after deductions.\u201d 12. It appears that the Traffic Commissioner was unaware, on 24 April 2023, that the Appellant had emailed screenshots of more recent bank statements. Having been informed of that matter, the Commissioner reconsidered his decision (presumably, acting under section 49A of the 1981 Act) to refuse the Appellant\u2019s licence application but decided that the information now before him made no difference. On 26 April 2023, the Traffic Commissioner issued a fresh decision letter which read as follows: \u201cThe financial information provided was not acceptable because the bank statement was dated January 2022, a recent original or verified bank statement was requested by email on 24 March 2023, the financial evidence provided in response were not in a form that meets the requirements as set out in Statutory Document No.2 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory guidance. Further to the above, from the information that has been provided the proposed income from the PSV operation would far exceed the income disclosed from other sources. Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate that you meet the requirements of Section 14ZB(b) \u2013 Financial standing, and Section 13(3)(b) \u2013 Main occupation, of the [1981 Act]. The Traffic Commissioner\u2019s decision is that the decision to refuse will not be re-opened for the reasons given above.\u201d The Appellant\u2019s case 13. The Appellant argues: (1) the Traffic Commissioner mistakenly found that he failed to provide an updated bank statement. He did so, by emailing a screenshot of a recent statement, shortly after it was requested on 24 March 2023; (2) the bank statement screenshot he provided should have been accepted as valid. It was taken from the \u2018official bank app\u2019 and should have been treated in the same way as an original bank statement; (3) no one told him that a screenshot would not be acceptable, and he could not have been expected to know that it would be rejected. It was extremely unjust for the Commissioner to have maintained his refusal decision once the screenshot evidence had been brought to his attention; (4) in assessing the Appellant\u2019s income, the Commissioner failed to have regard to his plan to do interpreting and handyman work until he qualified as a driving instructor. He was currently doing less interpreting to give him time to study but could easily earn \u00a38000 per annum from interpreting and \u00a35000 from handyman work which would mean that his other sources of income would surpass his projected PSV income. Legal framework 14. Section 4(4)(a) of the 1981 Act requires a Traffic Commissioner to act under the general directions of, and have regard to any guidance given by, the Senior Traffic Commissioner. Section 4C(1) empowers the Senior Commissioner to give the Traffic Commissioners guidance or general directions on the exercise of their functions. By virtue of section 4C(3)(b), the directions that may be given include directions as \u201cthe information which a traffic commissioner must ask to be supplied in connection with the exercise of any particular function, and the steps which must be taken to verify the accuracy of any information so supplied\u201d. 15. A Traffic Commissioner is entitled to proceed on the basis that an applicant is aware of the Senior Traffic Commissioner\u2019s statutory guidance (MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd 2012\/030). 16. Section 12(4) of the 1981 Act provides as follows: \u201c(4) An application for a PSV operator's licence shall be made in such form as a traffic commissioner may require, and an applicant shall give the traffic commissioner dealing with the application such information as he\u2026may reasonably require for disposing of the application.\u201d 17. Section 13 of the 1981 Act, headed \u201cClassification of licences\u201d, is the basis for the \u2018main occupation\u2019 rule for restricted PSV operator\u2019s licences: \u201c(1) A PSV operator's licence may be either a standard licence or a restricted licence. \u2026(3) A restricted licence authorises the use (whether on national or international operations) of\u2014 (a) public service vehicles not adapted to carry more than eight passengers; and (b) public service vehicles not adapted to carry more than sixteen passengers when used\u2014 (i) otherwise than in the course of a business of carrying passengers; or (ii) by a person whose main occupation is not the operation of public service vehicles adapted to carry more than eight passengers.\u201d 18. Section 14(2) of the 1981 Act requires a Traffic Commissioner, on an application for a restricted licence, to consider whether the requirements of sections 14ZB and 14ZC are satisfied. If the requirements are satisfied, the Commissioner must grant the licence (section 14(3)). 19. Insofar as relevant in this case, section 14ZB of the 1981 Act provides as follows: \u201cThe requirement of this section is that the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the applicant\u2014 \u2026(b) has appropriate financial standing (as determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 3).\u201d 20. As we have said, it is not disputed that, in order to demonstrate financial standing, this Appellant was required to have at least \u00a33,100 available for the purposes of the proposed PSV operation. 21. Insofar as relevant in this case, section 14ZC of the 1981 Act provides as follows: \u201c(1) The requirement of this section is that the traffic commissioner is satisfied\u2014 \u2026(b) that there will be adequate arrangements for securing compliance with the requirements of the law relating to the driving and operation of those vehicles.\u201d 22. The \u2018requirements of the law relating to the driving and operation of those vehicles\u2019 include section 13(1)(b)\u2019s prohibition on a restricted licence holder, whose main occupation is the operation of public service vehicles adapted to carry more than eight passengers, using such vehicles. That is why an applicant for a restricted licence who fails to satisfy the main occupation rule is bound to fail. 23. The Senior Traffic Commissioner\u2019s Statutory Document No. 2 \u2013 Finance includes both guidance and general directions given under section 4C of the 1981 Act. The directions include: – \u201c36. Historically commissioners have required the submission of bank statements for a three-month period when operators and applicants are seeking to establish availability of finance, but this approach has only given a historic analysis of the operator\u2019s financial position and has been of limited assistance to new applicants who may only be able to establish access to the required finances for a period of one month prior to the establishment of the business.\u201d; – \u201c52. Where on application\u2026bank or building society accounts are relied upon, original statements must be supplied for the past 28 days, the last balance of which must not be more than two months from the date of receipt of the application. Applicants may therefore need to submit further statements where their application is delayed or incomplete. Where applications are made digitally, electronic copies of original documents and internet statements can be uploaded with the application, however the traffic commissioner and staff acting on their behalf reserve the right to request originals.\u201d; – \u201c54\u2026 where copies have been scanned and sent the traffic commissioners and staff acting on their behalf reserve the right to request the original documents to be sent.\u201d – Paragraph 64 provides that \u201cAnnex 1 offers a quick reference guide to the starting point for different types of legal entity\u201d; – Annex 1, entitled Sources of Financial Evidence, specifies in relation to sole trader applicants, \u201cOriginal or certified copies of any bank or building society accounts statements must be supplied for the last 28 days. Electronic copies of original documents and internet statements can be uploaded in the case of digital applications.\u201d Conclusions 24. We shall deal first with the Appellant\u2019s argument that the Traffic Commissioner made a flawed determination that his proposed PSV business would amount to his main occupation (so that, under section 13(3)(b) of the 1981 Act, a restricted licence would not authorise the Appellant\u2019s use of a vehicle adapted to carry between nine and sixteen passengers). 25. The Commissioner used the proportion of the Appellant\u2019s anticipated income attributable to the proposed PSV business as a proxy for his main occupation. Anticipated PSV income would, on the information provided by the Appellant, provide the majority of the Appellant\u2019s annual income and so the Commissioner reasoned that the proposed PSV business would be the Appellant\u2019s main occupation. That did not involve any misdirection in law. In fact, on those figures, it is difficult to see how the Commissioner could properly have arrived at any other conclusion. 26. The Appellant also criticises the Commissioner\u2019s findings as to the proportion of the Appellant\u2019s income that would be derived from the proposed PSV business. We are satisfied that, in making these findings, the Commissioner erred neither in fact nor law. The Commissioner was perfectly entitled take the information provided by the Appellant at face value and was not required to suggest how the Appellant might rearrange his work in order to satisfy the main occupation rule nor to speculate as to the Appellant\u2019s likely income profile in the event that he started work as a qualified driving instructor. In any event, the Appellant\u2019s own suggestion as to how he might rearrange his work, set out in his notice of appeal, would still leave the proposed PSV business as his main source of income (\u00a38,000 per annum from interpreting; \u00a35,000 from handyman work; \u00a310,800 from the proposed PSV business). 27. The above conclusion makes it strictly unnecessary for us to consider whether the Commissioner unfairly refused to consider bank account evidence in the form of \u2018screenshots\u2019. However, we doubt that we would have allowed this appeal on that basis. We do not know enough about the screenshots provided by the Appellant to assess whether they amounted to the \u2018internet statements\u2019 referred to in the Senior Traffic Commissioner\u2019s Statutory Document No.2. But even if they did, that Document provides, at paragraph 52, that \u201cthe traffic commissioner and staff acting on their behalf reserve the right to request originals\u201d. 28. Finally, we apologise for the delay in giving this decision. Initially, due to an administrative oversight this case was not marked on the Upper Tribunal\u2019s case management system as ready for decision. And, subsequently, the judge was absent from duties while recovering from injuries sustained in an accident. Authorised for issue by the Upper Tribunal panel on 26 May 2024 Section 50(1), Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This appeal is dismissed. Subject matter: main occupation rule for restricted licences; financial standing. Case law referred to:MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd (2012\/030). REASONS FOR DECISION Traffic Commissioner\u2019s decision 1. On 4 January 2023, the Appellant applied to the Traffic Commissioner for a restricted public service vehicle (PSV) operator\u2019s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (\u201c1981 Act\u201d). The…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[9033],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8677],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,7919,7694,7661,10528],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-599074","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-upper-tribunal-administrative-appeals-chamber","kji_year-8677","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-application","kji_keyword-commissioner","kji_keyword-section","kji_keyword-traffic","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nAnham Hussain - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anham Hussain\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This appeal is dismissed. Subject matter: main occupation rule for restricted licences; financial standing. Case law referred to:MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd (2012\/030). REASONS FOR DECISION Traffic Commissioner\u2019s decision 1. On 4 January 2023, the Appellant applied to the Traffic Commissioner for a restricted public service vehicle (PSV) operator\u2019s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (\u201c1981 Act\u201d). The...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"12 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/anham-hussain\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/anham-hussain\\\/\",\"name\":\"Anham Hussain - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-18T21:38:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/anham-hussain\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/anham-hussain\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/anham-hussain\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Anham Hussain\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anham Hussain - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anham Hussain","og_description":"This appeal is dismissed. Subject matter: main occupation rule for restricted licences; financial standing. Case law referred to:MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd (2012\/030). REASONS FOR DECISION Traffic Commissioner\u2019s decision 1. On 4 January 2023, the Appellant applied to the Traffic Commissioner for a restricted public service vehicle (PSV) operator\u2019s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (\u201c1981 Act\u201d). The...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"12 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/","name":"Anham Hussain - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-18T21:38:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/anham-hussain\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Anham Hussain"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/599074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=599074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=599074"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=599074"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=599074"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=599074"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=599074"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=599074"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=599074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}