Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 september 2016

Onder 2.36 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 september 2016

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 9 september 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:898.

‘57. For the lack of compensation in the 2004 Act [Hunting Act 2004, A-G], the Court accepts that a ban on an activity which is introduced by legislation will inevitably have an adverse financial impact on those whose businesses or jobs are dependent on the prohibited activity (see, mutatis mutandis , C.E.M. Firearms Limited and others v the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 37674/97 and 37677/97, 26 September 2000). Nevertheless, the domestic authorities must enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the types of loss resulting from the measure for which compensation will be made. As stated in C.E.M. Firearms Limited v United Kingdom “the legislature’s judgment in this connection will in principle be respected unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.” This applies, a fortiori , to cases where the interference concerns control of the use of property under the second paragraph of Article 1 rather than deprivation of possessions under the first paragraph of the Article’.

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/1a6d1cb2e628c43eea4c2f1086ff6656e78c9bb73e59271298c8d363af5012a1. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 1a6d1cb2e628c43eea4c2f1086ff6656e78c9bb73e59271298c8d363af5012a1, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 106251 tot 107409.