request to lift or suspend his extended pre-trial detention ( gevangenhouding ) on 16 April 2020, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of The Hague on 4 June 2020, were communicated to the Dutch

The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Koopman, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the denial to allow the third applicant to join her parents – the first two applicants – in the Netherlands, was communicated to the Dutch

of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in case of his removal to his country of origin, as well as under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy were communicated to the Dutch

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

prolonged detention in the Netherlands – for the purpose of his surrender on the basis of a European arrest warrant to the United Kingdom – beyond 90 days after his apprehension, were communicated to the Dutch

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.

Furthermore, had her asylum application been granted from the outset, she would by now have had a residence permit since three years which would allow her to obtain Dutch nationality in 2021.

originated in an application against the Netherlands lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 March 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Jacobus Petrus Koster, a Dutch

accordance with Article 32, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, the sum of 2   700 Dutch

Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 that she did not have an effective remedy in Dutch national law in terms of her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

Secondly, he contended that Dutch law created a difference of treatment between illegitimate and legitimate children, which was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

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

The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the decision to revoke his residence permit, were communicated to the Dutch Government (“the Government”).

The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, both of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Koopman, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Since in Dutch law an appeal is directed against the charge rather than against the first instance judgment, an appeal involves a completely new establishment of the facts and a reassessment of the law

avec pour mission de : 1° - se rendre sur les lieux concernés par les travaux de désamiantage et démolition situés 15 et 23 bis rue Boissy d'Anglas, 1 Côte Jarnieux et 2, 4, 6, 8 et 10 rue Ferdinand Duchier

La société MK Graille qui exploite un établissement sous l'enseigne " Dutch " au 5 rue Batéguier à Cannes demande au juge des référés, saisi sur le fondement de l'article L. 521-1 du code de justice administrative