Part III is at the heart of the ‘common core’ methodology employed in this research. It is based on a group of hypothetical cases discussed with national experts, in order to ascertain whether they make sense within all the legal systems selected for comparison. The hypotheticals include, first, administrative procedure, at the end of which a citizen or a firm either unsuccessfully applies for some type of benefit, such as a license or a concession, or is otherwise adversely affected by an administrative act or measure, including the dismissal of a civil servant; second, measures that are taken with regard to a variety of firms, such as the prohibition of import of certain goods from a foreign country; third, the administrative suspension or withdrawal of a benefit, such as a concession for selling certain products; fourth, material action taken by civil servants, for example police officers. The national experts do not only indicate the solution that is more likely to be provided by jurists in their respective legal orders, but also reflect on the underlying institutional and cultural reasons, including the role played by legal formants. The answers in the national reports also prepare the ground for further discussion (of a more comparative character) that is included in Part IV.