THIRD SECTION DECISION
|
|
- Sheena May
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no /09 by NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 October 2011 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, Ineta Ziemele, Luis López Guerra, Mihai Poalelungi, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant company, Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V., are a limited company (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated under Netherlands law with its offices in Rotterdam. Their business is insurance. The applicant company were represented before the Court by Ms R.L. Bakels, a lawyer practising in The Hague.
2 2 NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS DECISION The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows. 3. The limited partnership (commanditaire vennootschap) H. was a firm of insurance brokers. The applicant company insured H. against professional liability. 4. One of the clients served by H. was the limited liability company (besloten vennootschap) R. Among the insurance contracts negotiated for R. by H. was a fire insurance policy with a different insurance company (not the applicant) covering a warehouse belonging to R. 5. A dispute arose between H. and R. after the warehouse was damaged by fire. It emerged that the warehouse was underinsured, allegedly as a result of H. s negligence. 6. R. sued H. for the difference between the insurance payout and the actual damage before the Regional Court (rechtbank) of Zutphen. On 21 June 2006 that court ordered H. to pay to R. a total sum of 725,000 euros in damages, plus interest and costs. 7. The time-limit for lodging an appeal with the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) expired on 21 September The appeal summons (dagvaarding) was served on R. on 27 September 2006, that is six days late. The applicant company state that this resulted from an oversight on the part of the bailiff (deurwaarder). 9. On 10 April 2007 the Court of Appeal of Arnhem gave judgment rejecting H. s appeal as out of time. 10. H. lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), which confirmed the Court of Appeal s judgment on 24 April The applicant company paid the sums awarded by the Regional Court to R. 12. On 22 October 2009 H. and the applicant company signed a deed of assignment (akte van cessie) containing the following clauses: 8. The parties [i.e. H. and the applicant company] take the view that since it has now been established in law that H. s appeal is inadmissible H. s right of access to a tribunal, enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention, has been violated. H. thus has a claim against the Netherlands State based on violation of Article 6 of the Convention. This claim will be realised by bringing proceedings against the Netherlands State in the European Court of Human Rights on the ground of violation of Article 6 of the Convention. 9. H. is prepared to assign the above-mentioned claim against the Netherlands State to [the applicant company] for the purpose of the intended proceedings. [The applicant company] are prepared to accept this assignment.
3 NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS DECISION 3 COMPLAINT 13. The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the rejection of H s appeal, which in their submission constituted a denial of access to court. Relying on Platakou v. Greece, no /97, 39, ECHR 2001-I, they submitted that since bailiffs were public officials, the respondent Party was responsible for their mistakes. THE LAW 14. The applicant company allege a violation of H. s right of access to a tribunal as guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention. 15. Article 34 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides as follows: The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto Article 34 of the Convention thus sets two conditions: an applicant must fall into one of the categories of petitioners mentioned in Article 34, and he or she must be able to make out a case that he or she is the victim of a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto. According to the Court s established case-law, the concept of victim must be interpreted autonomously and irrespective of domestic concepts such as those concerning an interest or capacity to act. In addition, in order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, there must be a sufficiently direct link between the applicant and the harm which they consider they have sustained on account of the alleged violation (see, among other authorities, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no /00, 35, ECHR 2004-III, with further references). 17. The applicant company base their claim to standing as applicant before the Court on a deed of assignment from H. The Court must consider whether this is sufficient for the applicant company to be granted the status of victim for the purposes of the above Article. 18. There are examples in the Court s case-law of applicants having been accorded standing despite not having themselves been victims of the violation alleged. Such, for example, have been cases in which the original applicants died during the proceedings before the Court and others with a legitimate interest (normally the applicant s heirs or next-of-kin) have taken their place (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, 7, Series A no. 35; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, 2, Series A no. 206-C; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no /95, 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous
4 4 NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS DECISION v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no /96, ECHR 2000-XII; Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos /98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, 3, 3 October 2008; compare and contrast Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no /02, 50, 30 March 2009). The Court has also, on occasion, held that a case could be continued after the death of an applicant, and even in the absence of heirs wishing to continue, where the issues transcended the interests of the applicant and raised an important question of public interest relevant to human rights standards in Contracting States (see Karner v. Austria, no /98, 25, ECHR 2003-IX; compare and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, 32, Series A no. 287). 19. Different considerations have governed the Court s decisions when the applicant had died before the application was brought. Many surviving next-of-kin of persons who had lost their lives in circumstances giving rise to issues under Article 2 of the Convention have been allowed to apply as applicants in their own right (see, for example, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, 1, Series A no. 324; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no /94, 1, ECHR 1999-IV; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos /98 and 43579/98, 1-2, ECHR 2005-VII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no /99, 1 and 3, ECHR 2007-II; Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no /02, 1 and 3, 24 March 2011; and Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no /07, 1 and 3, 7 July 2011). This, however, is a particular situation governed by the nature of the violation alleged and considerations of the effective implementation of one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention system (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no /04, ECHR 2005-VI). 20. Conversely, where the deceased has been an alleged victim of a violation of a right other than the substantive right protected by Article 2, the Court has generally declined to grant standing to any other person unless that person could, exceptionally, demonstrate an interest of their own (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, 33, Series A no. 123; Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no /00, 30-31, ECHR 2005-II; Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no /02, 25, 13 July 2006; and Grădinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, , 8 April 2008; compare and contrast Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no /99, ECHR 2000-XI; Fairfield and Others (dec.), cited above; Makri and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 5977/03, ECHR 24 March 2005; and Biç and Others v. Turkey, no /00, 23, 2 February 2006). In certain cases, especially where the right alleged to have been violated was one of those guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, the Court has been swayed by considerations of general interest in addition to individual interests of the applicants (see Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no /00, 29, 5 July 2005, and Micallef v. Malta [GC], no /06, 49-50, 15 October 2009).
5 NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS DECISION As regards limited companies with separate legal personality, the Court has held that they are not normally to be identified with their shareholders in other words, the piercing of the corporate veil or the disregarding of a company s legal personality will be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or in the event of liquidation through its liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, 66, Series A no. 330-A). It has, however, on occasion identified situations where it would serve no purpose to distinguish between the company and its shareholders; generally speaking, this has been the case when one person controlled all the shares in the company and provided its management (see Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, 10 and 49, Series A no. 173; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, 42, Series A no. 222; Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no /90, 21, 31 July 2003; and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no /02, 40, 11 October 2007). 22. Similarly, the Court has denied standing to associations whose own interests were not at stake, even though the interests of their members or some of them might be (see, among other authorities, Association des amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus v. France (dec.), no /98, 29 February 2000, in respect of the applicant association; and Uitgeversmaatschappij De Telegraaf B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (partial decision), no /06, 18 May 2010, in respect of the Netherlands Association of Journalists and the Netherlands Society of Editors-in-Chief); even when those associations were set up with no other aim than to vindicate the rights of alleged victims (see Smits, Kleyn, Mettler Toledo B.V. et al., Raymakers, Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute and Van Helden v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos /97, 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98, 46664/99 and 61707/00, 3 May 2001, in respect of the applicant Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute); and even though they might be non-governmental organisations whose very purpose was to defend human rights (see Van Melle and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no /08, ECHR 29 September 2009, in respect of the applicant Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens). 23. In Novikov v. Russia, no /02, 18 June 2009, the applicant obtained by a deed of assignment a claim to a quantity of goods held by a government agency. He then brought proceedings in the domestic courts and later introduced an application before the Court alleging a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found that the applicant had acquired a claim valid under domestic law and qualifying as a possession for the purposes of that Article, so that the could be recognised as a victim within the meaning of Article 34.
6 6 NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS DECISION 24. The present case is different from all of the above. Not only were the applicant company not themselves a party to the impugned domestic proceedings, but they do not derive vicarious victim status from kinship, inheritance, or institutional links to H., nor from any other form of succession. The applicant company have sought to obtain by a deed of assignment, a contract under domestic civil law, the right to lodge an application under the Convention with the European Court of Human Rights. 25. The right of individual petition vouchsafed by Article 34 of the Convention is not a proprietary right. Nor is it transferable as if it were. Whatever the validity in terms of domestic law of the transaction here in issue, it would be out of keeping with the nature of the Convention as an instrument protecting basic human rights and the Court itself as its guardian to allow the status of applicant to be transferred at will. 26. It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Marialena Tsirli Deputy Registrar Josep Casadevall President
THIRD SECTION. CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 19940/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 January 2012 FINAL 10/04/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 37821/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 January 2012 FINAL 10/04/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 14927/12 and 30415/12 István FEHÉR against Slovakia and Erzsébet DOLNÍK against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 May 2013
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51428/10 A.M.E. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 21727/08 by Angelique POST against
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 27945/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37204/02 Ludmila Yakovlevna GUSAR against the Republic of Moldova and Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Chamber
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 16761/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF JOVIČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
THIRD SECTION CASE OF JOVIČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA (Applications nos. 37270/11, 37278/11, 47705/11, 47712/11, 47725/11, 56203/11, 56238/11 and 75689/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 January 2015 FINAL 13/04/2015
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43700/07 by Haroutioun HARUTIOENYAN and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF POPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF POPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS (Application no. 32271/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationGRAND CHAMBER. CASE OF MICALLEF v. MALTA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF MICALLEF v. MALTA (Application no. 17056/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 October 2009 MICALLEF v. MALTA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Micallef v. Malta, The European Court of Human Rights,
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 5065/06)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 5065/06) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 20 July 2010 FINAL 20/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA. (Applications nos /03 and 10893/04) JUDGMENT (Revision 1 ) STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04) JUDGMENT (Revision 1 ) STRASBOURG 28 August 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17064/06 by Boruch SHUB against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 4 June 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 10890/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 4 June 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43334/05 by Hayk PAPYAN and Others against Armenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 June 2010 as a Chamber
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21563/08 N.F. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President,
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51016/11 Orde van Register Adviseurs Nederland OVRAN and others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 April 2015
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 17899/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 60974/00 by ROSELTRANS, FINLEASE
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 37187/03 and 18577/08 Iaroslav SARUPICI against the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine and Anatolie GANEA and Aurelia GHERSCOVICI against the Republic of Moldova The
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 7 January 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA (Application no. 77660/01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 7 January 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF MAGHERINI v. ITALY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 June 2006
TESTO INTEGRALE THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAGHERINI v. ITALY (Application no. 69143/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 June 2006 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43768/17 HAN AARTS B.V. and others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 October 2017 as a Committee composed
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF B.S. v. SPAIN. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 24 July 2012 FINAL 24/10/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF B.S. v. SPAIN (Application no. 47159/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 24 July 2012 FINAL 24/10/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 19 October 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 55133/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 October 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT
More informationOverview ECHR
Overview 1959-2016 ECHR This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 56588/07 by Robert STAPLETON against Ireland The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 May 2010 as a Chamber composed
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF MARINA v. LATVIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 October 2010 FINAL 26/01/2011
THIRD SECTION CASE OF MARINA v. LATVIA (Application no. 46040/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 October 2010 FINAL 26/01/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF KOVÁČIK v. SLOVAKIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT
THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOVÁČIK v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 50903/06) JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 1 December 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012
More informationYour questions about: the Court of Justice of the European Union. the EFTA Court. the European Court of Human Rights
Your questions about: the Court of Justice of the European Union the EFTA Court the European Court of Human Rights the International Court of Justice the International Criminal Court CJEU COURT OF JUSTICE
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 20689/08 by W. against the Netherlands
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2019
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 January 2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationOverview ECHR
Overview 1959-2017 ECHR This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 68811/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 November 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. DORIĆ v. BOSNIA
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 60596/09 Maya OKROSHIDZE and Giorgi OKROSHIDZE against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 December 2012 as a Committee composed
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7984/06)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 7984/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 October 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF CIUCCI v. ITALY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 June 2006
TESTO INTEGRALE THIRD SECTION CASE OF CIUCCI v. ITALY (Application no. 68345/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 June 2006 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA. (Application no /08)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 48099/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /02)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 30388/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 25 March 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KARNER v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 40016/98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 July
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KARNER v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 July 2003 FINAL 24/10/2003
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KARNER v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 40016/98) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 July 2003 FINAL 24/10/2003 In the case of Karner v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MANOLE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /02)
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MANOLE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 13936/02) JUDGMENT (just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 13 July 2010 FINAL 13/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35178/97 by Hubert ANKARCRONA
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE (Application no. 22603/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 July 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 67081/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 July 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MATEUS PEREIRA
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54041/14 G.H. against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President, András
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 17931/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 April 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 18275/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 April 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN FEBRUARY 2017
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN FEBRUARY 2017 In February 2017, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 366.8 thousand (Annex,
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN AUGUST 2015
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN AUGUST 2015 In August 2015, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 512.0 thousand (Annex, Table
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN MARCH 2016
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN MARCH 2016 In March 2016, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 354.7 thousand (Annex, Table
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN AUGUST 2016
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN AUGUST 2016 In August 2016, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 590.6 thousand (Annex, Table
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN MAY 2017
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN MAY 2017 In May 2017, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 653.3 thousand (Annex, Table 1) or
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN SEPTEMBER 2015
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN SEPTEMBER 2015 In September 2015, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 450.9 thousand (Annex,
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VUJOVIĆ AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 February 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VUJOVIĆ AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 18912/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 February 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF ION TUDOR v. ROMANIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013 FINAL 17/03/2014
THIRD SECTION CASE OF ION TUDOR v. ROMANIA (Application no. 14364/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 FINAL 17/03/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationTRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN DECEMBER 2016
TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN DECEMBER 2016 In December 2016, the number of the trips of Bulgarian residents abroad was 397.3 thousand (Annex,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND. (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 September 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationIdentification of the respondent: Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Towards implementing European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSAS) for EU Member States - Public consultation on future EPSAS governance principles and structures Fields marked with are mandatory.
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17969/10 Janina Gelena SELINA against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 September 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paulo
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 65417/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 September 2017
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 44533/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 September 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO JUDGMENT
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7332/10 by Josef HAVELKA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF GORESKI AND OTHERS v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
FIRST SECTION CASE OF GORESKI AND OTHERS v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (Application no. 27307/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 October 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 75095/11 Rosel ZIERD against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Committee composed of: Ganna Yudkivska, President,
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF SERGEY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /04)
FIRST SECTION CASE OF SERGEY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 14085/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 December 2009 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BRITANIŠKINA v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BRITANIŠKINA v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 67412/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More information2. The table in the Annex outlines the declarations received by the General Secretariat of the Council and their status to date.
Council of the European Union Brussels, 10 June 2016 (OR. en) 9603/16 COPEN 184 EUROJUST 69 EJN 36 NOTE From: To: Subject: General Secretariat of the Council Delegations Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY (Application no. 22840/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationEuropean patent filings
Annual Report 07 - European patent filings European patent filings Total filings This graph shows the geographic origin of the European patent filings. This is determined by the country of residence of
More informationCoordinated version of the Articles of Association (herein, "Statutes")
Coordinated version of the Articles of Association (herein, "Statutes") EUROPEAN POWDER METALLURGY ASSOCIATION (EPMA) International non-profit association Avenue Louise, 326, box 30 1050 Brussels BELGIUM
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 25907/02 by Søren TOPP against
More informationTHE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FACTS & FIGURES
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FACTS & FIGURES 2017 This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 73093/11 Karel FUKSA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 January 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger,
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF NIŢULESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 22 September 2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF NIŢULESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 16184/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 September 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF OAO PLODOVAYA KOMPANIYA v. RUSSIA
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF OAO PLODOVAYA KOMPANIYA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 1641/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationExplanatory Report to the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights *
European Treaty Series - No. 160 Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights * Strasbourg, 25.I.1996 I. Introduction In 1990, the Parliamentary Assembly, in its Recommendation
More informationEuropean Union Passport
European Union Passport European Union Passport How the EU works The EU is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 European countries that together cover much of the continent. The EU was
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 September 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA (Application no. 48717/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 September 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KAREMANI v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA (Application no. 26642/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 October
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM (Application no. 50615/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 November
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 498/10 Piotr CIOK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Päivi Hirvelä, President,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 38106/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27
More informationRiga Graduate School of Law Interdisciplinary Studies Series Editorial Board:
Riga Graduate School of Law Interdisciplinary Studies Series Editorial Board: George Ulrich (Ph.D) Mel Kenny (Dr.iur.) Ineta Ziemele (Ph.D) VOLUME 1 Riga Graduate School of Law Interdisciplinary Studies
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BISERICA ADEVĂRAT ORTODOXĂ DIN MOLDOVA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Application
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY (Application no. 59601/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationILO comments on the EU single permit directive and its discussions in the European Parliament and Council
14.2.2011 ILO comments on the EU single permit directive and its discussions in the European Parliament and Council The social security and equal treatment/non-discrimination dimensions Equal treatment
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.
More informationEU SYMBOL AND CYPRUS FLAG /NICE BEACH
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP EU SYMBOL AND CYPRUS FLAG /NICE BEACH The Cyprus citizenship program offers the most simple and efficient means of obtaining EU citizenship, it is the only direct EU citizenship program
More information1. Why do third-country audit entities have to register with authorities in Member States?
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Form A Annex to the Common Application Form for Registration of Third-Country Audit Entities under a European Commission Decision 2008/627/EC of 29 July 2008 on transitional
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAIORANO AND SERAFINI
More informationDECISION. Date of adoption: 6 June Case No. 12/07. Teki BOKSHI and Zeqir BUJUPI. against UNMIK
DECISION Date of adoption: 6 June 2008 Case No. 12/07 Teki BOKSHI and Zeqir BUJUPI against UNMIK The Human Right Advisory Panel sitting on 4 June 2008 With the following members present: Mr. Marek NOWICKI,
More informationExcessive use of police force against 19 year old Roma
issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 155 22.02.2011 Excessive use of police force against 19 year old Roma In today s Chamber judgment in the case Soare and Others v. Romania (application no. 24329/02),
More information