Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 4 oktober 2022

Onder 4.29 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 4 oktober 2022

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

61. Indeed, the seizure of the applicant’s property did not purport to deprive him of his possessions but placed a temporary restriction on its use by prohibiting its alienation or encumbrance, which, in circumstances where the disposition of the property was associated with the applicant’s lawful business, also inevitably affected the capacities of his business activity (see JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas, cited above, § 129; and paragraph 17 above). The Court also finds it important to note that the seizure of the applicant’s property was applied as a provisional measure aimed at securing enforcement of a possible confiscation order imposed at the outcome of the criminal proceedings in relation to the obtained proceeds of crime (see, for example, Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 118, 6 December 2011).

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 51609 tot 52457.