BuboFlash - helps with learning

Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.

Presentation
Question

Answer

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once the court decided there had been a deprivation of liberty, it then considered in detail if any of the limitations in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f) might apply. None were found to. In relation to the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) in particular it noted that, while the argument that the measures were taken because they were 'reasonably considered necessary to prevent [Mr Guzzardi] committing an offence' might seem applicable, it could not succeed, because:

'… the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing [...].'

Answer

a concrete and specific offence

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once the court decided there had been a deprivation of liberty, it then considered in detail if any of the limitations in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f) might apply. None were found to. In relation to the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) in particular it noted that, while the argument that the measures were taken because they were 'reasonably considered necessary to prevent [Mr Guzzardi] committing an offence' might seem applicable, it could not succeed, because:

'… the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing [...].'

Answer

?

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once the court decided there had been a deprivation of liberty, it then considered in detail if any of the limitations in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f) might apply. None were found to. In relation to the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) in particular it noted that, while the argument that the measures were taken because they were 'reasonably considered necessary to prevent [Mr Guzzardi] committing an offence' might seem applicable, it could not succeed, because:

'… the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing [...].'

Answer

a concrete and specific offence

If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing <span>a concrete and specific offence.' <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

status	not learned		measured difficulty	37% [default]		last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0		memorised on			scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval			last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions

Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.