Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

After the Court’s partial decision on admissibility of 5 February 2013 Mr A.W. Eikelboom, also a lawyer practising in Amsterdam, replaced Mr Uiterwaal.

    The applicant challenged the objection to admissibility under Article   17 of the Convention, arguing that he had not propagated any negationist or revisionist views.

It specified that in principle neither evidence relating to the facts and events previously submitted in the courts, nor the admissibility of such evidence, nor the interpretation and application of the

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

complained particularly that the Court of Cassation had refused to examine the merits of their application, declaring it inadmissible on the ground that it did not satisfy the statutory conditions of admissibility

    Admissibility proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation 33 .

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

    The Armenian Government fully shared the applicants’ position on the admissibility and merits of the application. 4.   EHRAC/Lowenstein Clinic, third-party intervener 24.

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

avoid } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria