Property & WEG Management
Objego
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Objego GmbH · objego.de
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Objego is a web-based product for private landlords — objego is a brand of ista SE, Essen, HRB 33073 — and the bench scored it squarely as a landlord toolkit rather than a WEG administration platform. Its strongest criterion is pricing transparency at 4-5: per-unit prices are public with the billing period stated (0,95 € je Mieteinheit/pro Monat for Nebenkosten, 7,95 € für alle Mieteinheiten/pro Monat for Verwaltung, free Basics with 1 GB storage), though asterisked conditions, VAT, minimum term and setup costs remain unstated. Documents and handover holds a flat 3 for central archiving without versioning, retention policy or handover export. Community-side capabilities are absent: assembly and resolutions and owner self-service both scored 0, with no meeting support, Beschluss-Sammlung or owner portal anywhere in the evidence, and WEG accounting sits at a uniform 1 with no Wirtschaftsplan or WEG-Jahresabrechnung. Score movement was confined to sovereignty (2-4: a German contracting entity, but hosting unstated and the evidence's residency and subprocessor attributes unknown) and maintenance; no disagreement rose above threshold.
Speaks for it
- Public per-unit pricing with the billing period stated: 0,95 € je Mieteinheit/pro Monat for Nebenkosten and 7,95 € für alle Mieteinheiten/pro Monat for Verwaltung.
- A free Basics tier covering unlimited properties with 1 GB of document storage.
- Central digital collection and archiving of rental contracts, handover protocols and contractor invoices (documents, retention & handover 3).
- German contracting entity — objego is a brand of ista SE, Amtsgericht Essen, HRB 33073.
- A four-step tenant Nebenkostenabrechnung workflow ending in a PDF download.
Held against it
- Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung at 0 across the table — no invitations, agenda, voting or Beschluss-Sammlung evidenced anywhere.
- Owner & tenant self-service at 0 — no owner or tenant login, per-owner statements or defect form.
- Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage at a flat 1 — no Wirtschaftsplan, WEG-Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or separately held Rücklage in the evidence.
- Maintenance, defects & contractors at 1-2 — contractor invoices are archived but defect tracking, work orders and recurring maintenance calendars are absent.
- Hosting location for product data is unstated while the evidence records data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown, with only a blanket Art. 28 DS-GVO claim.
Best for
- You are a private landlord who needs tenant Nebenkostenabrechnung and Anlage V preparation for your own rental units.
- You want transparent per-unit pricing and a free Basics tier (unlimited properties, 1 GB document storage) to start with.
- You need central archiving of rental contracts, handover protocols and contractor invoices across multiple properties, web-based with no installation.
Avoid if
- You administer a WEG community that needs a Wirtschaftsplan, WEG-Jahresabrechnung and a maintained Beschluss-Sammlung — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your owners expect self-service access to their statements or a defect form (owner & tenant self-service 0).
- You need defect routing, work orders or scheduled recurring maintenance with stored proof (maintenance, defects & contractors 1-2).
- You must verify where the product's data is hosted or see a published subprocessor list before adoption — the evidence records data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown.
The scores
Wirtschaftsplan, Jahresabrechnung & Rücklage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The statutory financial cycle: business plan, annual settlement in the form the law and the BGH require, distribution keys, and the separate handling of reserve funds held in trust for the community.
0 — General bookkeeping only; no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung, no distribution keys, reserves treated as ordinary balances.
3 — Templates that help a human produce the documents, with distribution keys entered by hand and no separation of the Rücklage.
5 — Wirtschaftsplan and Jahresabrechnung generated from the ledger with configurable distribution keys (MEA, units, consumption), and reserves booked separately.
8 — Settlement in the post-2021 BGH form with the Abrechnungsspitze shown separately, Vermögensbericht produced, heating-cost apportionment per HeizkostenV integrated, owner-change apportionment mid-year handled, and Hausgeld arrears tracked with dunning.
10 — The whole financial year is discharged inside the system: multi-community bookkeeping with strict per-WEG separation, trust accounting for reserves with its own reporting, settlement documents an accountant would sign, and the arithmetic auditable back to individual postings.
The WEG Administrator
The module list names Nebenkostenabrechnung and Finanzverwaltung, but the evidenced workflow is a landlord's tenant utility settlement (four steps to a PDF) — nowhere does the evidence mention a Wirtschaftsplan, a WEG-Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys, Rücklage separation or an Abrechnungsspitze. Come March this produces nothing I could lay before the owners, which is general bookkeeping plus a tenancy settlement and nothing statutory. 1 3
The Advisory Board Member
The modules evidenced are Finanzverwaltung and a Nebenkostenabrechnung workflow — that is general landlord bookkeeping, with no Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung in WEG form, no distribution keys and no word on the Rücklage anywhere on the evidence. Condominiums appear only as a property type I can file, not as a community whose money is held separately. The arithmetic of a settlement cannot be followed because there is no settlement. 1 2 3
The Accountant
The financial side is a four-step rental Nebenkostenabrechnung and a generic 'Finanzverwaltung' module for private landlords — no Wirtschaftsplan, no WEG-Jahresabrechnung with a separately shown Abrechnungsspitze, no MEA/units/consumption distribution keys, and not a word on segregating the Rücklage as trust money. Only the existence of a consumption-based settlement PDF keeps this off the floor. 1 3
The Portfolio Manager
The module list is Nebenkostenabrechnung, Finanzverwaltung, Dokumentenmanagement and Anlage V prep — a tenant utility statement in four steps is not a WEG financial cycle. No Wirtschaftsplan, no Jahresabrechnung in BGH form, no Verteilerschlüssel and no separate Rücklage appear anywhere; I cannot run a single community's statutory year on this. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence shows a tenant-facing Nebenkostenabrechnung in four steps and a generic Finanzverwaltung module, aimed squarely at private landlords — not a word on Wirtschaftsplan, WEG-Jahresabrechnung, distribution keys or a separately held Rücklage. That is one step above bare bookkeeping because consumption-based utility apportionment exists, but the statutory WEG financial cycle is simply absent from the evidence. 1 3
The Skeptic
The only financial cycle evidenced is a tenant-side Nebenkostenabrechnung in "4 einfachen Schritten" plus a generic "Finanzen im Blick" — no Wirtschaftsplan, no WEG-Jahresabrechnung in the post-2021 BGH form, no Abrechnungsspitze, no distribution keys, and not a word about the Rücklage being held separately. The confirmed module list (Nebenkosten, Finanzverwaltung, Dokumente, Anlage V) reads like a landlord's toolkit, not an administrator's. 1 2 3
Eigentümerversammlung & Beschluss-Sammlung
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Convening, running and recording the owners' meeting — including the resolution register the law requires the administrator to maintain, and the majority arithmetic that decides whether a resolution stands.
0 — No meeting support; invitations and minutes are written elsewhere and the Beschluss-Sammlung is a document somewhere.
3 — Invitation templates and a place to store minutes, but no agenda structure, no voting support and no maintained resolution register.
5 — Agenda-driven invitations respecting the notice period, attendance and proxy recording, voting with the common majority types, and a Beschluss-Sammlung kept as a numbered register.
8 — Quorum and majority computed per resolution type including MEA-weighted and qualified majorities, proxies and voting restrictions handled, minutes generated from the recorded votes, and the register maintained continuously with amendment and invalidation notes as § 24 (7) requires.
10 — The meeting is conducted in the system: hybrid or written circulation procedures supported with their own legal rules, contested resolutions flagged within the challenge period, the register complete and exportable as evidence, and every entry traceable to the meeting that produced it.
The WEG Administrator
Complete silence on convening, agendas, voting, minutes and — decisive for me — the Beschluss-Sammlung; the module list (Nebenkostenabrechnung, Finanzverwaltung, Dokumentenmanagement, Anlage V) contains no meeting capability at all, so the register would stay in my drawer. 1 3
The Advisory Board Member
Nothing: no invitations, no agenda, no voting, no Beschluss-Sammlung — the module list and the whole homepage are silent on meetings entirely, and for this criterion silence is the answer. A resolution register does not exist in this product in any form I could point an owner to. 1 3
The Accountant
The evidence is entirely silent on meetings: no invitations, no agenda structure, no voting arithmetic, no maintained Beschluss-Sammlung anywhere in the module list or homepage. Silence is information here, and the anchor for no meeting support is where this lands. 1 3
The Portfolio Manager
Silent on everything: no invitations, no agenda, no voting arithmetic, no Beschluss-Sammlung — the modules listed are purely landlord finance. Every Eigentümerversammlung would be run and recorded outside the system, which for my throughput means it may as well be 1995. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The homepage and the full module list (Nebenkostenabrechnung, Finanzverwaltung, Dokumentenmanagement, Anlage V) contain no invitation, agenda, voting, minutes or Beschluss-Sammlung capability of any kind. 1 3
The Skeptic
Nothing at all: no invitation template, no agenda, no voting, no Beschluss-Sammlung anywhere in the registry — the four confirmed modules contain no meeting support of any kind. Listing "Eigentumswohnungen" as a managed property type without a single assembly or resolution feature is exactly the "WEG-konform" claim I want the receipt for, and it isn't there. 1 3
Owner & tenant self-service
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How an owner exercises their right to see the records, and how much routine correspondence the portal removes: statements, documents, meeting papers, defect reporting.
0 — No portal; every request is answered by email or post.
3 — A document download area with no per-owner scoping — everyone sees the same folder, or access is by emailed link.
5 — Per-owner login showing their own statements, documents and meeting papers, with a defect or request form that reaches the administrator.
8 — Owners and tenants scoped separately with correct visibility, meeting papers and voting available in the portal, defect reports with status visible to the reporter, and consumption or arrears shown per unit.
10 — The portal discharges the disclosure duty: every record an owner is entitled to see available on demand with an access log, tenant and owner views strictly separated, notifications for statutory deadlines, and enough self-service that routine correspondence largely disappears.
The WEG Administrator
No owner or tenant portal is evidenced anywhere on the evidence; the product targets the private landlord, so every owner's inspection request and every routine correspondence would still reach me by email or post. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
No portal of any kind is evidenced — no per-owner login, no statements on demand, no defect form, not even an undifferentiated download folder. The product addresses a private landlord looking after their own properties, so the neighbours' right to see the records would be answered by email, if at all. 1 3
The Accountant
Objego addresses the private landlord managing their own units — there is no evidence of any per-owner or per-tenant login, no statements portal, no defect form with status visibility. An owner's right to inspect the records would be handled entirely outside this product. 1
The Portfolio Manager
No owner or tenant portal is evidenced at any point — no login, no per-owner statements, no defect form, nothing. Eigentumswohnungen are named as a supported property type, but the evidence gives owners no way to see or do anything themselves. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
No owner or tenant login, portal, per-owner scoping or defect form appears anywhere in the captured facts; the product speaks exclusively to the landlord's side of the screen. For people whose bank details and arrears would sit in this system, that is precisely the visibility question left unanswered. 1 3
Maintenance, defects & contractors
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The building side: defect intake and tracking, recurring maintenance obligations, contractor assignment, and the evidence trail when something goes wrong.
0 — Defects arrive by phone and live in a notebook; no maintenance schedule.
3 — A ticket or note list per property, contractors contacted outside the system, no recurring maintenance calendar.
5 — Defect records per unit or property with status and photos, contractor assignment with a work order, and a recurring maintenance schedule with reminders.
8 — Warranty and Gewährleistung periods tracked against the responsible trade, statutory inspections (lift, heating, fire safety, drinking-water) scheduled with proof of completion stored, quotes and invoices linked to the defect, and cost allocated to the correct account.
10 — A defensible operating record: every obligation, inspection and defect with its evidence and dates, contractor performance visible, budget consumption against the Wirtschaftsplan tracked live, and a history that answers the question of what the administrator knew and when.
The WEG Administrator
The only building-side fact is that Handwerkerrechnungen can be digitally collected and archived — no defect tracking, no recurring maintenance calendar, no work orders, no inspection scheduling. That is a filing cabinet with a search box, not maintenance management. 1
The Advisory Board Member
The only building-side capability I can find is archiving Handwerkerrechnungen alongside contracts and handover protocols — an invoice filing cabinet, not defect management. There is no defect record with status, no contractor assignment, no recurring maintenance calendar, so the question of what the administrator knew and when has no answer here. 1
The Accountant
The only building-side capability evidenced is archiving Handwerkerrechnungen as documents — no defect intake with status, no work orders, no recurring maintenance calendar, no Gewährleistung or inspection tracking. A filed invoice is a paper trail, not an operating record. 1
The Portfolio Manager
The only building-side trace is that Handwerkerrechnungen can be archived alongside rental contracts — there is no defect intake, no work orders, no recurring maintenance calendar, and critically no scheduling of lift, heating, fire-safety or drinking-water inspections with stored proof, which is the core of my due diligence file. A contractor invoice in a folder is not defect routing. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only building-side feature evidenced is archiving Handwerkerrechnungen as documents; defect intake, status tracking, work orders, recurring maintenance calendars and Gewährleistung tracking are all absent from the evidence. Document storage of invoices is not a defect pipeline. 1 3
The Skeptic
The closest capability is archiving Handwerkerrechnungen alongside contracts — a filing cabinet, not defect tracking; there is no ticket status, no recurring maintenance calendar, no work order to a contractor. I give it one point only because contractor invoices at least land in a structured archive rather than a shoebox. 1
Documents, retention & handover
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The archive and the exit. A Verwalter's appointment is finite by law, and the records belong to the community — so handover is a statutory event, not a support ticket.
0 — Documents live on a shared drive; no retention rules, and handover means copying folders.
3 — Central document storage per property with folders and upload, but no versioning, no retention policy and no defined handover export.
5 — Structured document management per property and unit with search, retention periods stated, and a documented export of a community's records.
8 — Full-text search across the archive, version history, documents linked to the resolutions and settlements that reference them, and a complete handover package (ledger, register, documents, master data) in open formats.
10 — Handover is a first-class feature rather than an obstacle: a complete, structured export a successor administrator can actually load, retention executed per statutory period, an access log over the archive, and no commercial friction placed in the way of a community leaving.
The WEG Administrator
Documents (rental contracts, handover protocols, contractor invoices) are collected and archived centrally with 1 GB free storage, which is anchor-level central storage per property; versioning, retention periods for the archive and any defined handover export are all absent from the evidence. 1 2
The Advisory Board Member
Digital collection and archiving of rental contracts, handover protocols and contractor invoices per property, with 1 GB of free storage in the basics tier, is real central storage. But the evidence shows no versioning, no retention periods for the archive itself, and no defined handover export — which is exactly rubric level 3, and for a WEG the exit is a statutory event this product does not seem to have heard of. 1 2
The Accountant
Digital collection and systematic archiving of contracts, handover protocols and contractor invoices with 1 GB of free storage matches the central-storage anchor squarely. But there is no versioning, no retention policy, and no defined handover export — a successor Verwalter would be downloading folders. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
Central digital collection and archiving ('mit System archivieren') with 1 GB free matches central per-property storage, but there is no versioning, no retention policy for the archive and no defined handover export — the 'Übergabeprotokolle' mentioned are tenant move-in protocols, not a Verwalter handover package. A community leaving this system gets a folder copy. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Documents can be collected 'mit System archiviert' with 1 GB free storage — central per-account storage, but no versioning, no archive retention policy, no access log and no defined handover export are evidenced. The only retention figures anywhere govern website consent and newsletter data, not community records, so nothing here tells me retention would actually execute or that a successor administrator gets the archive. 1 2
The Skeptic
Central storage with "mit System archivierten" contracts, handover protocols and invoices across unlimited properties (1 GB free) is exactly the folders-and-upload anchor; no versioning, no retention policy for community documents (the only retention periods in the evidence concern consent and newsletter data), and no defined export letting a community leave with its records. Handover as a statutory event is simply not on this product's map. 1 2 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the community's financial and personal records live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — document OCR, AI features, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — German or EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and an export that keeps the community compliant for the full retention period after the appointment ends.
The WEG Administrator
The entity side is solidly German — Objego GmbH Essen, brand of ista SE, Amtsgericht Essen HRB 33073, GDPR and Art. 28 processor declarations, encrypted transmission — but where the SaaS itself is hosted is unstated and no subprocessor list is published, which is exactly the anchor-3 deficit; the one named non-EU transfer (newsletter data to the USA under SCCs) concerns marketing, not my communities' ledgers. 1 3 4
The Advisory Board Member
The contracting side is solidly German — objego is a brand of ista SE, register court Amtsgericht Essen, HRB 33073, controller in Essen — and even the newsletter's US transfer is named with EU standard contractual clauses. But the hosting location of the community's financial records is unstated, the subprocessor list is absent save for a blanket Art. 28 claim, and the evidence's own attributes mark data residency as unknown — I cannot tell my neighbours where the money records sit. 3 4
The Accountant
The contracting entity is solidly German — objego is a Marke der ista SE, Essen, register court Amtsgericht Essen, German DPO — which is better than the anchor that has a non-EU entity. But hosting location for the records is unstated, the subprocessor list is absent (only a generic Art. 28 DS-GVO claim), and the one named transfer is US newsletter processing under SCCs; I cannot verify where a community's ledger would physically live. 3 4
The Portfolio Manager
The contracting side is solidly German — ista SE, Luxemburger Str. 1, Essen, HRB 33073, German VAT ID — but hosting for the actual product data is unstated, there is no subprocessor list beyond website consent tooling (Usercentrics, Belgium) and a US newsletter transfer on SCCs. I could not tell a community where its books would physically live, which for me caps this well below a deployable answer. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
objego is a brand of ista SE, Essen (HRB 33073, German VAT ID), so the contracting entity is demonstrably German — but hosting location for the actual product data is entirely unstated, the subprocessor list is absent behind a blanket Art. 28 claim, and a US transfer (newsletter, SCCs) is disclosed. A German imprint does not tell me where owners' names, bank details and arrears are processed, and the pipeline itself records every sovereignty attribute as unknown. 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting side is genuinely German — objego is "eine Marke der ista SE", Essen, HRB 33073 at Amtsgericht Essen — which rules out the 0 anchor, but hosting is unstated and no subprocessor is named, only the blanket "alle Dienstleister… erfüllen Art. 28 DS-GVO", with even the newsletter flowing to the USA under SCCs. The pipeline 0 of 10 on unknowns; I land on 3 because a German entity with an absent subprocessor list is precisely what that anchor describes. 1 3 4
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an administrator can compute the real annual cost for the units under management — including modules, per-community fees and setup — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every quote is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-unit or per-community headline exists, but modules, minimum terms, setup or migration fees are unstated.
5 — Per-unit or per-community prices public with billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed piece (portal, accounting module, document storage) sits in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-unit maths, minimum term, setup and migration costs and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of units and communities including every module, with no per-seat surprises and any exit or export fee stated outright.
The WEG Administrator
Two public prices with billing period stated — 0,95 € per Mieteinheit/month for the Nebenkostenabrechnung and 7,95 €/month flat for Verwaltung, plus an enumerated free basics tier — so the headline annual maths is computable; but the asterisked conditions, minimum term, setup or migration costs, VAT treatment, and what Anlage V or storage beyond 1 GB cost are not derivable from the captured pages. 2 1
The Advisory Board Member
Per-unit prices are public with the billing period stated — 0,95 € per rental unit per month for the utility billing and 7,95 € per month for the Verwaltung, plus a genuinely free basics tier. But the VAT treatment, minimum term and any setup or migration fees are unstated, and the asterisks hint at footnotes I cannot see, so the annual invoice is not yet computable from the page alone. 1 2
The Accountant
Module prices are public per unit per month (0,95 € billing, 0,95 € Nebenkosten, 7,95 € Verwaltung) plus a free basics tier, so a rough annual sum is derivable — better than a bare headline. But every price carries an uncaptured asterisk, and minimum term, setup/migration costs and VAT treatment are nowhere stated, and storage beyond the free 1 GB is unpriced. 1 2
The Portfolio Manager
Public per-unit maths with the billing period stated — 0,95 € per Mieteinheit/month for the Nebenkosten module, 7,95 € for the Verwaltung package, a real free tier — but the asterisked conditions, setup or minimum terms, and document storage beyond the free 1 GB are unpriced, so a full annual invoice is not computable from the page. Genuinely transparent for what it is; it just isn't much. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
0.95 € per rental unit/month for Nebenkosten and 7.95 €/month for Verwaltung are public with the billing period stated, plus a free tier — real per-unit maths exist. But the asterisked conditions behind every price, VAT treatment, minimum term and setup or migration costs are uncaptured, and whether modules like Anlage V or document storage beyond 1 GB sit in which bundle is not derivable. 2 3
The Skeptic
Per-unit maths is public: 0,95 € je Mieteinheit/pro Monat for the Nebenkosten module, 7,95 €/Monat flat for Verwaltung, basics free, billing period stated — but those asterisks hide unstated conditions, and VAT, minimum term, setup or migration costs are nowhere, while Finanzverwaltung and Dokumentenmanagement from the module list sit in unpriced territory. An administrator could compute a headline sum, not the real annual cost. 1 2 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 5 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The region is stated on the marketing/security page rather than in the privacy policy, which itself notes that newsletter subscriber data may be transferred to the USA.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 6 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.