Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POST v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (66)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 34953/97

  FITZMARTIN and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

  However, the date on which a form of authority to represent an applicant in the proceedings before it has been submitted is not decisive for the purposes of assessment of the compliance with the six-month requirement under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Fitzmartin and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 34953/97, 21 January 2003).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 9298/02

  CLOSE v. the NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

  An overview with further details of the relevant domestic law and practice in respect of pre-trial detention can be found in the Court's decision on admissibility in the case of Close v. the Netherlands (no. 9298/02, 25 May 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.06.2015 - 46043/14

  Schutzpflichten gegenüber dem Leben eines Patienten mit apallischem Syndrom bei …

  It is essential for representatives to demonstrate that they have received specific and explicit instructions from the alleged victim on whose behalf they purport to act before the Court (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; Nencheva and Others, cited above, § 83; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 102).
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 30915/23

  ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The date on which an authority is supplied is normally not decisive for assessing compliance with the time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see W.S. v. Poland, cited above, § 42, and Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 50494/13

  VEB NCVB AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Registry's fax made reference to the Court's case-law in this respect, in particular to Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), 21727/08, 20 January 2009; Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 22, 1 June 2010; Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10449/08, 13 September 2011; Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, §§ 17-19, 14 May 2012; and Ngendakumana v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16380/11, 5 February 2013.

  Your attention is drawn to the fact that in the absence of an original authority form the Court may declare the application inadmissible (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), 21727/08, 20 January 2009; Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 22, 1 June 2010; Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10449/08, 13 September 2011; Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, §§ 17-19, 14 May 2012; and Kokhreidze and Ramishvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 35864/11

  KAUR v. THE NETHERLANDS

  With reference to the Court's decision in the case of Post v. the Netherlands (no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009), it was also drawn to Mr Groenenberg's attention that failure to submit an authority form could lead the Court to declare the application inadmissible on the ground that there was no valid application.

  As to the question whether the omission to submit an authority form - in cases where applicants are represented -, may have consequences for the date of introduction of an application, it is true that the Court has previously held that the date on which a form of authority has been submitted is not decisive for the purposes of assessment of the compliance with the six-month requirement (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009 and W.S. v. Poland, no. 21508/02, § 42, 19 June 2007).

• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention permits it to deal with a matter only if the relevant complaint has been lodged within six months of the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among others, Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 21425/06, ECHR 2009-...; and Baryshnikova v. Russia (dec.), no. 37390/04, 12 November 2009).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

  They argued that this situation should have been considered by the Court as a ground for inadmissibility, and referred to inadmissibility decisions against the Netherlands (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 22, 1 June 2010; and Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, §§ 17-18, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

  [ENG]

  Le Gouvernement invoque à l'appui de son argumentation la décision Post c. Pays-Bas ((déc.), no 21727/08, 20 janvier 2009) ainsi que l'article 35 §§ 3 a) et 4 de la Convention, libellé comme suit:.
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12

  ABUBAKAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It has previously held that the date on which a form of authority has been submitted is not decisive for the purposes of the assessment of compliance with the six-month requirement (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009, and W.S. v. Poland, no. 21508/02, § 42, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 45806/11

  ZIKATANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It was apparently due to an error that the authority form was not submitted initially together with the forms signed by the remaining applicants (contrast Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009, where there had been no indication whatsoever that the applicant wished the person having submitted the application to represent her).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 47146/11

  [ENG]

  As to the question whether the omission to submit an authority form - in cases where applicants are represented -, may have consequences for the date of introduction of an application, it is true that the Court has previously held that the date on which a form of authority has been submitted is not decisive for the purposes of assessment of the compliance with the six-month requirement (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009 and W.S. v. Poland, no. 21508/02, § 42, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7067/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 7050/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 49210/15

  KLAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 33809/08

  LABSI v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.01.2020 - 38067/15

  L.R. v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 51359/09

  BALTA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 41444/09

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 46086/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 4529/06

  ZORLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 66568/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 29272/08

  ÖZEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 54749/13

  ANEMA-KWINKELENBERG AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 35640/22

  X v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 61310/10

  DILBAS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  RANÐELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  YABLOKO RUSSIAN UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 53354/10

  AKTAYLI ET AKVARDAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 49794/10

  TUDOR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 8193/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 60/10

  VIDIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24133/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 3240/03

  PANA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 10449/08

  CETIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 36868/03

  DUPIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 31970/20

  VALIDITY FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF TÜNDE JUHÁSZ v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15

  BULIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 11612/10

  MAMMAD v. AZERBAIJAN and 8 other applications
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 30472/17

  YUSEINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 44914/09

  NEDOROSTKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.09.2015 - 17473/15

  ABUSISI v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 2140/13

  N.Z. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 33486/13

  METALO CHIMICA SOCIETATE COOPERATIVA MESTESUGAREASCA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 10011/10

  MAKOVOZ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 45599/08

  SEJIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 28342/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 22785/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 22009/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 17129/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 57291/12

  DENIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 5286/10

  CANBEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 11795/06

  KOTESKA AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 22872/11

  HABTEMARIAM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 4557/08

  TOSUN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.10.2023 - 7222/22

  PERNECHELE AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 35335/20

  MENENDEZ ESCANDON c. ANDORRE
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 59172/12

  G.J. v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 39496/14

  N. AND M. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41730/10

  SEREN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 5358/14

  X AND Y v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 17092/07

  KOKHREIDZE AND RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 43044/05

  SACILIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 17366/04

  TANCHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 15974/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 53788/08

  CYTACKA AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA