Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIMITZI-PAPACHRISTOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  Τ&omikron; Δικαστήρι&omikron; έχει ήδη κρίνει ότι µία πρ&omikron;σφυγή µπ&omikron;ρεί να κηρυχθεί καταχρηστική αν στηρίζεται εσκεµµÎ­να πάνω σε στ&omikron;ιχεία κατασκευασµÎ­να για να παραπλανήσ&omikron;υν τ&omikron; Δικαστήρι&omikron; (Varbanov κατά Β&omikron;υλγαρίας, αριθ. 31365/96, § 36, CEDH 2000-X).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  67208/01, 18 ΜαÎ�&omikron;υ 2004).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 22051/07

  B. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  22051/07, 19 Ιαν&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2010, και Jenik κατά Αυστρίας (déc.), αριθ.

• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 50914/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  50914/06, § 26, 28 ΜαÎ�&omikron;υ 2009).
• EGMR, 18.11.1999 - 45839/99

  BELHOMME contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  45839/99, 46950/99, 48721/99, 51459/99, 46147/99, 47012/99, 49814/99, 51461/99, 18 Ν&omikron;εµβρί&omikron;υ 1999).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 11568/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  37794/07, 11568/08, 23036/08, 23044/08, 23047/08, 23053/08, 23054/08, 48865/08, 20 Ν&omikron;εµβρί&omikron;υ 2012).
• EKMR, 15.10.1987 - 13284/87

  M. c. LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  Έτσι, είναι καταχρηστικό, για έναν πρ&omikron;σφεÏ�γ&omikron;ντα, τ&omikron; να π&omikron;λλαπλασιάζει ενώπι&omikron;ν τ&omikron;υ Δικαστηρί&omikron;υ πρ&omikron;σφυγές στρεψόδικες και πρ&omikron;δήλως αβάσιµες, αντίστ&omikron;ιχες µε µία αίτηση τ&omikron;υ πρ&omikron;σφεÏ�γ&omikron;ντ&omikron;ς π&omikron;υ έχει κηρυχθεί απαράδεκτη στ&omikron; παρελθόν (Μ. κατά ΗνωµÎ­ν&omikron;υ Βασιλεί&omikron;υ, αριθ. 13284/87, απόφαση της Επιτρ&omikron;πής της 15 &Omikron;κτωβρί&omikron;υ 1987, DR 54, σελ. 214, και Φίλης κατά Ελλάδας, αριθ. 28970/95, απόφαση της Επιτρ&omikron;πής της 17 &Omikron;κτωβρί&omikron;υ 1996).
• EKMR, 17.10.1996 - 28970/95

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 50634/11

  Έτσι, είναι καταχρηστικό, για έναν πρ&omikron;σφεÏ�γ&omikron;ντα, τ&omikron; να π&omikron;λλαπλασιάζει ενώπι&omikron;ν τ&omikron;υ Δικαστηρί&omikron;υ πρ&omikron;σφυγές στρεψόδικες και πρ&omikron;δήλως αβάσιµες, αντίστ&omikron;ιχες µε µία αίτηση τ&omikron;υ πρ&omikron;σφεÏ�γ&omikron;ντ&omikron;ς π&omikron;υ έχει κηρυχθεί απαράδεκτη στ&omikron; παρελθόν (Μ. κατά ΗνωµÎ­ν&omikron;υ Βασιλεί&omikron;υ, αριθ. 13284/87, απόφαση της Επιτρ&omikron;πής της 15 &Omikron;κτωβρί&omikron;υ 1987, DR 54, σελ. 214, και Φίλης κατά Ελλάδας, αριθ. 28970/95, απόφαση της Επιτρ&omikron;πής της 17 &Omikron;κτωβρί&omikron;υ 1996).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VG Düsseldorf, 04.03.2016 - 7 K 9305/13
  Rn. 40 Einen Antrag auf einstweiligen Rechtsschutz hat der Einzelrichter mit Beschluss vom 3. April 2013 - 7 L 2548/13 - abgelehnt.

  Bereits mit Beschluss vom 3. April 2014 - 7 L 2548/13 - hat der Einzelrichter ausgeführt, dass die dem Kläger erteilten Aufenthaltserlaubnisse unter dem Aliasnamen aufgrund der jahrelangen beharrlichen Täuschung über seine Identität rechtswidrig waren und die Ausländerbehörde der Beklagten daher berechtigt war, diese mit der angefochtenen Ordnungsverfügung auch für die Vergangenheit zurückzunehmen, wobei sie das ihr zustehende Ermessen erkannt und - soweit für das Gericht im Rahmen des § 114 VwGO überprüfbar - beanstandungsfrei zu Lasten des Klägers ausgeübt hat.

  Zur Vermeidung unnötiger Wiederholungen wird auf die den Beteiligten bekannte Begründung des Beschlusses des Einzelrichters im Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes 7 L 2548/13 vom 3. April 2014 und die Gründe des Beschlusses des OVG NRW im Beschwerdeverfahren 18 B 484/14 vom 21. Juli 2015 Bezug genommen.

• VG Düsseldorf, 03.04.2014 - 7 L 2550/13
  Der Einzelrichter hat hierzu im Beschluss vom heutigen Tage im Verfahren des Ehemannes 7 L 2548/13 ausgeführt:.

  Rn. 34 Vgl. die Beschlüsse des Einzelrichter vom heutigen Tage in den Verfahren der Familienangehörigen - 7 L 2548/13 - und - 7 L 2549/13 -.

• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 33296/13

  MOUTSATSOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Quant à la seconde exception du Gouvernement, la Cour note que rien ne permet de conclure que l'enjeu des litiges en cause était disproportionné par rapport aux procédures portés devant la Cour, d'autant plus que les procédures internes concernaient l'augmentation des pensions des requérants (voir, a contrario, Bock c. Allemagne (déc.), no 22051/07, 19 janvier 2010, et Simitzi-Papachristou et autres c. Grèce, (déc.), no 50634/11, 5 novembre 2013).

• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 64659/11

  MAKRADULI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 1 other application

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013), or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new, significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 67648/10

  PUUSEP v. ESTONIA

  As regards the alleged abuse of the right of petition, the Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008, and Tatalovic and Dekic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 53661/13

  MARKOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008, and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 34929/16

  BIHORAC HAJDARAGIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008; and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 52142/12

  MITROVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008; and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 80131/12

  STANKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008; and Tatalovic and Dekic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 7090/12

  PETROPOULAKOU AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  In this regard, it reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013), or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above), or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008, and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 05.01.2017 - 3822/10

  MINE-PROJEKT DOO v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 34194/09

  PULIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15767/12

  VESELINOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 45928/08

  DURDEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 80775/12

  STOJKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 63649/13

  CVETKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 49961/12

  ATANASIJEVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 19978/14

  PAVLOVIC AND PANTOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 18545/10

  KOLICIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 57771/10

  MARINKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 33104/16

  MATOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 34176/10

  METALEX DOO v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 18859/12

  RADOVANOVIC v. SERBIA