Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DER PUTTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  As the Court stated in Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2010:.

  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, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  The right to trial within a reasonable time is one such fundamental guarantee (see, among many other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 76, Series A no. 51; Motta v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 15, Series A no. 195-A; see also, as examples concerning the same Contracting Party as the present case, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 23, Series A no. 248-A, and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 22, Series A no. 248-B; more recently, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 62, ECHR 2004-X (extracts); and lately, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 61, ECHR 2007-V (extracts) and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 46300/99

  Recht auf faires Strafverfahren (staatliche Einflussnahme auf die Ausübung der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  The right to trial within a reasonable time is one such fundamental guarantee (see, among many other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 76, Series A no. 51; Motta v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 15, Series A no. 195-A; see also, as examples concerning the same Contracting Party as the present case, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 23, Series A no. 248-A, and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 22, Series A no. 248-B; more recently, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 62, ECHR 2004-X (extracts); and lately, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 61, ECHR 2007-V (extracts) and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  The Court has had occasion to note that Article 6 does not compel Contracting Parties to provide appeals in civil or criminal cases (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25, Series A no. 11; more recently, Lalmahomed v. the Netherlands, no. 26036/08, § 34, 22 February 2011).
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 35365/05

  LADYGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  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, 09.10.2012 - 16593/10

  ZWINKELS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  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, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97

  KHALFAOUI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  However, a Contracting Party which provides for the possibility of an appeal is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before the appellate court the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 (see the above-cited Delcourt judgment, loc. cit., and De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 32, Series A no. 86; as more recent examples, Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, § 37, ECHR 1999-IX; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 122, ECHR 2000-XI; and Lalmahomed, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  However, a Contracting Party which provides for the possibility of an appeal is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before the appellate court the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 (see the above-cited Delcourt judgment, loc. cit., and De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 32, Series A no. 86; as more recent examples, Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, § 37, ECHR 1999-IX; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 122, ECHR 2000-XI; and Lalmahomed, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  The right to trial within a reasonable time is one such fundamental guarantee (see, among many other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 76, Series A no. 51; Motta v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 15, Series A no. 195-A; see also, as examples concerning the same Contracting Party as the present case, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 23, Series A no. 248-A, and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 22, Series A no. 248-B; more recently, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 62, ECHR 2004-X (extracts); and lately, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 61, ECHR 2007-V (extracts) and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  The right to trial within a reasonable time is one such fundamental guarantee (see, among many other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 76, Series A no. 51; Motta v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 15, Series A no. 195-A; see also, as examples concerning the same Contracting Party as the present case, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 23, Series A no. 248-A, and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 22, Series A no. 248-B; more recently, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 62, ECHR 2004-X (extracts); and lately, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 61, ECHR 2007-V (extracts) and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 26.09.2012 - 26036/08

  LALMAHOMED AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 70474/11

  KIRIL ZLATKOV NIKOLOV c. FRANCE

  D'un autre côté, a priori, le grief pourrait dépasser le « niveau minimal de gravité'justifiant son examen (voir, par exemple, Van der Putten c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 15909/13, § 28, 27 août 2013).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 35722/04

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court sees no need to answer the applicant's further arguments, as the complaint is anyway inadmissible for another reason (see Van der Putten v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 15909/13, § 28, 27 August 2013).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 9791/05

  VASYANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  There is no need to answer the applicants" arguments, as the complaint is anyway inadmissible for another reason (see Van der Putten v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 15909/13, § 28, 27 August 2013).