Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2003

Alinea 62 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2003

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 januari 2003, ECLI:NL:PHR:2003:AF0148.

91. As to the Government's second submission, the Court would point to the difference in the nature of the interests protected by Articles 6 § 1 and 8. Thus, Article 6 § 1 affords a procedural safeguard, namely the "right to a court" in the determination of one's "civil rights and obligations" (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36) [ NJ 1975,462, m.nt. EAA, red. NJ]; whereas not only does the procedural requirement inherent in Article 8 cover administrative procedures as well as judicial proceedings, but it is ancillary to the wider purpose of ensuring proper respect for, inter alia, family life (see, for example, the B. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121-B, pp. 72-74 and 75, § 63-65 and 68). The difference between the purpose pursued by the respective safeguards afforded by Articles 6 § 1 and 8 may, in the light of the particular circumstances, justify the examination of the same set of facts under both Articles (compare, for example, the above-mentioned Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment, pp. 20-22, § 41-45, and the O. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1987, Series A no. 120-A, pp. 28-29, § 65-67).

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/e9bf48bb5b832a1794462944dc5b6a3cd590bc1deeefd6a44515a55c810f044b. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt e9bf48bb5b832a1794462944dc5b6a3cd590bc1deeefd6a44515a55c810f044b, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 21358 tot 22593.