Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EKMR&Datum=09.01.1995&Aktenzeichen=16717%2F90
Timestamp: 2019-03-19 11:05:42
Document Index: 693413117

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', '§ 44', '§ 29', '§ 2', '§ 63', '§ 29', '§ 44', '§ 293', '§ 2', '§ 63', '§ 29', '§ 44', '§ 293']

EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 16717/90 - dejure.org
PAUGER c. AUTRICHE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 2, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
EKMR, 27.02.1996 - 16717/90
16717/90 and 24872/94, Commission decisions of 9 January 1995); (ii) the concept of complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I and Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172); and (iii) where the applicant submits new information, the application will not be essentially the same as a previous application (see Patera v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 25326/03), Commission decision of 10 January 1996 and Chappex v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 20338/92, Commission decision of 12 October 1994).
Reference should also be made in this context to the criteria established in the case-law concerning Article 35 § 2 (b), by which an application is to be declared inadmissible if it "is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court... and contains no relevant new information": (i) an application is considered as being "substantially the same" where the parties, the complaints and the facts are identical (see Pauger v. Austria (dec.), no. 16717/90 and no. 24872/94; Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) cited above, § 63) ; (ii) the concept of complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I; Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 45291/06, § 293); and (iii) where the applicant submits new information, the application will not be essentially the same as a previous application (see Chappex v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 20338/92; Patera v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 25326/03).
Finally, reference should also be made to the criteria established in the case-law concerning Article 35 § 2 (b), by which an application is to be declared inadmissible if it "is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court... and contains no relevant new information": (i) an application is considered as being "substantially the same" where the parties, the complaints and the facts are identical (see Pauger v. Austria (dec.), no. 16717/90 and no. 24872/94, 9 January 1995, and Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), cited above, § 63); (ii) the concept of complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I; and Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 45291/06, § 293, 8 December 2009); and (iii) where the applicant submits new information, the application will not be essentially the same as a previous application (see Chappex v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 20338/92, 12 October 1994, and Patera v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 25326/03, 10 January 2006).