Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 4 oktober 2022

Onder 4.31 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 4 oktober 2022

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 4 oktober 2022, ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:889.

104. The courts’ omission to address the first applicant’s argument does not, in the event, appear to have substantively affected him, since the Plovdiv Court of Appeal concomitantly decided, for other reasons, to unfreeze the half of the initially frozen assets that belonged to his wife (see paragraph 26 above). The total sum of money in the frozen bank accounts at the time of the freezing order (see paragraph 17 in fine above) was not negligible, and the applicants have not presented any evidence about the specific amount of money that they needed to take care of their disabled son. But this cannot, in itself, affect the above analysis, since it was the domestic courts’ duty to satisfy themselves that the freezing of the first applicant’s assets would not cause him more damage than that which inevitably flows from such measures. The Court has had occasion to say

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/c4c656fc375499764c25df39c232770bee2b9e420c49cd17dc438a0353e94ce2. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt c4c656fc375499764c25df39c232770bee2b9e420c49cd17dc438a0353e94ce2, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 56008 tot 56905.