Without referring to any specific provision of the Convention, the applicant also complains that Dutch law does not indicate at what time the execution of a provisional detention order

          The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1942.   At present he resides at K., the Netherlands.

      The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1925 and residing in Tilburg.

and 7 August 1998, the parties notified the Commission that they had agreed on the following terms of a friendly settlement:   (German)     "Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vertreten durch

They also noted that Article 457 § 1 (b) of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure provides a basis for reopening proceedings if the Court finds a violation of the Convention.

       The applicant, born in 1945, is a Dutch national and resident at Eichenau.

The third applicant is a Dutch national, born in 1956, and resides in Namen, Belgium. They are represented by Mr H.D.L.M. Schruer, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

It further noted that the Dutch authorities were already inquiring into the situation and were assisting and counselling the family. 15.

;       Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:       THE FACTS         The applicants are Dutch

Menschenrechtskonvention im Fall Obst   Verletzung von Artikel 8 im Fall Schüth     Zusammenfassung des Sachverhalts   Beide Fälle betrafen die Kündigung eines Arbeitsverhältnisses durch

Adresse 5] typeReprésentant légal : Mme [D], [K], [G] [I], Directeur général, [Adresse 5] comparant par Me Laurence BRUGUIER CRESPY [Adresse 6] et par Me Fabrice PRADON [Adresse 7] (P429) * KLM ROYAL DUTCH

  The Netherlands authorities informed the National Intelligence and Customs Investigation Department (DNRED) that Mr Grifhorst was known to the Dutch police for activities dating back to 1983 (threats

          The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1968 and residing at Z., the Netherlands.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr.

  The Dutch authorities consider that, given the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all the authorities concerned are expected to align their practice with the present judgment

14 and 42804/14 Ramazan KESKIN against Croatia and A.B. against Croatia lodged on 29 May 2014 and 2 June 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant in the first case, Mr Ramazan Keskin, is a Dutch

        The applicant came to the Netherlands in 1982, where, on 1 February 1985, he married a Dutch national.

    Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by a Dutch national, Ronald Rutten, who was born in 1970 and lives in Doetinchem (the Netherlands).

The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2.