Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZWINKELS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16593/10

  This means that the Court will examine of its own motion whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (3) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010 and Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 24360/04

  GIURAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16593/10

  Indeed, the applicant did not suggest that it caused him any actual inconvenience whatsoever, nor even that he personally was in any way affected by the inspectors" ingress (compare and contrast Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, § 22, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 35365/05

  LADYGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16593/10

  This means that the Court will examine of its own motion whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (3) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010 and Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011).

• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 12810/13

  ÇELIK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  As is now its practice, the Court will examine of its own motion whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (3) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see, in particular, Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011; and Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 24, 9 October 1912).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 16474/11

  NIKOLOUZOS c. GRÈCE

  La Cour examinera donc d'office si a) le requérant a subi un préjudice important ; b) le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention et ses Protocoles exige un examen de la requête au fond et c) l'affaire a été dûment examinée par un tribunal interne (Zwinkels c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 16593/10, 9 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  BANNIKOV v. LATVIA

  This means that the Court will examine whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (3) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 24, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  VAN DER PUTTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  As is now its practice, the Court will examine of its own motion whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (3) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see, in particular, Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011; and Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 24, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 585/19

  NELISSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court must examine whether: (1) the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged violation; and (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010, and Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 24, 9 October 2012, relating to Article 35 § 3 (b) in the version before the entry into force of Protocol No. 15).