Onder 3.4 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 maart 2024

64. When the Court carries out its scrutiny, its task is not to substitute its own view for that of the relevant national authorities but rather to review under Article 11 the decisions they took. This does not mean that it has to confine itself to ascertaining whether the State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; it must look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine, after having established that it pursued a “legitimate aim”, whether it answered a “pressing social need” and, in particular, whether it was proportionate to that aim and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were “relevant and sufficient”. In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Kudrevičius and Others , cited above, § 143, and Körtvélyessy v. Hungary , no. 7871/10, § 26, 5 April 2016).

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/3c934c1970ec08ec5e758c3ad6f5e53f0a8c6b130ede02f6e348c56ee1edcd21 | shasum -a 256