Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 7 juli 2016

Onder 3.20 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 7 juli 2016

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 7 juli 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:787.

99. In a number of these cases, the Court found in favour of the applicability of Article 6 § 2. Explaining why Article 6 § 2 applied despite the absence of a pending criminal charge in a trio of early cases, the Court said that the rulings on the applicants’ entitlement to costs and compensation were “consequences and necessary concomitants of”, or “a direct sequel to”, the conclusion of the criminal proceedings (see Englert, cited above, § 35; Nölkenbockhoff, cited above, § 35; and Lutz, cited above, § 56). Similarly, in a later series of cases, the Court concluded that Austrian legislation and practice “link[ed] the two questions – the criminal responsibility of the accused and the right to compensation – to such a degree that the decision on the latter issue could be regarded as a consequence and, to some extent, the concomitant of the decision on the former”, resulting in the applicability of Article 6 § 2 to the compensation proceedings (see Sekanina, cited above, § 22; Rushiti, cited above, § 27; and Weixelbraun v. Austria, no. 33730/96, § 24, 20 December 2001).

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/117f6356e3a6b9d0a89dbfcbf19a63482f2d85d4e9a502009562e648d0c77c33. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 117f6356e3a6b9d0a89dbfcbf19a63482f2d85d4e9a502009562e648d0c77c33, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 129132 tot 130258.