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.



Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
Conversely, in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241, the applicants were brought before a magistrates' court, where they were bound over to keep the peace following their disruption of a fox hunt. Here, the binding over orders were not imposed as a sanction for past unlawful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that [...].
Answer
the interference had not been prescribed by law

Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
Conversely, in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241, the applicants were brought before a magistrates' court, where they were bound over to keep the peace following their disruption of a fox hunt. Here, the binding over orders were not imposed as a sanction for past unlawful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that [...].
Answer
?

Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
Conversely, in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241, the applicants were brought before a magistrates' court, where they were bound over to keep the peace following their disruption of a fox hunt. Here, the binding over orders were not imposed as a sanction for past unlawful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that [...].
Answer
the interference had not been prescribed by law
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that <span>the interference had not been prescribed by law.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.