CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 octobre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 156 October 2012 Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 16593/10 Decision 9.10.2012 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Complaint that work inspectors had entered a private garage during the owner’s absence and without his permission: inadmissible   Facts – In his application to the European Court the applicant complained, inter alia , that work inspectors had entered his garage without permission to question two people they suspected of not holding work permits. In the domestic proceedings, the Regional Court held that because the applicant’s garage was not directly connected to his house, the inspectors had not needed permission to enter. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed the applicant’s appeal on technical grounds. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): The Court examined the question of the admissibility of the complaint under this head (no significant disadvantage) of its own motion. The applicant’s subjective perception that he had not been treated fairly and disagreed with the outcome of the case at the domestic level, although relevant, did not suffice for the Court to conclude that he had suffered a significant disadvantage. As to the second criterion, whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention required an examination of the application on the merits, the Court concluded that that was not the case either. As to whether there had been due consideration by a domestic tribunal, the facts of the applicant’s case taken as a whole disclosed no denial of justice at the domestic level. His grievances had been considered by the Regional Court and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. The fact that his complaint had not been subject to a decision on the merits before the latter court (the highest national judicial body in the Netherlands) did not constitute an obstacle to inadmissibility under Article 35 §   3   (b), it being noted that a full consideration of the merits of the Article   8 complaint had been conducted by the Regional Court. To construe the contrary would prevent the Court from rejecting any claim, however insignificant, where an appeal had been dismissed by the highest domestic authority in accordance with national provisions, as in the instant case. Such an approach would be neither appropriate nor consistent with the object and purpose of the new provision. The applicant’s case had therefore been duly considered by a domestic tribunal. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes