Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 februari 2018

Onder 6.6 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 februari 2018

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 februari 2018, ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:160.

38. The second criterion, the nature of the offence, is the more important. The Court observes that, as in the Janosevic and Bendenoun cases, it may be said that the tax surcharges were imposed by general legal provisions applying to taxpayers generally. (…). Further, as acknowledged by the Government, the tax surcharges were not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but as a punishment to deter re-offending. It may therefore be concluded that the surcharges were imposed by a rule whose purpose was deterrent and punitive. Without more, the Court considers that this establishes the criminal nature of the offence. The minor nature of the penalty renders this case different from Janosevic and Bendenoun as regards the third Engel criterion but does not remove the matter from the scope of Article 6. Hence, Article 6 applies under its criminal head notwithstanding the minor nature of the tax surcharge.

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/02c3585e9450ee442722792c5e58cc22bd2a47f2784775bc45de0e08aa417b95. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 02c3585e9450ee442722792c5e58cc22bd2a47f2784775bc45de0e08aa417b95, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 112294 tot 113227.