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
In [ case ] it was held that the positive obligation on the state was for its authorities (in this case the police) to take preventative measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another private individual. However, the court stated that this obligation on the authorities was subject to the following conditions:

'[I]t must be established … that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.'

The court also acknowledged, in view of the operational choices that must be made in terms of priorities and resources, that the positive obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an excessive burden on states and public authorities.
Answer
Osman v UK, (2000) 29 EHRR 245

Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
In [ case ] it was held that the positive obligation on the state was for its authorities (in this case the police) to take preventative measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another private individual. However, the court stated that this obligation on the authorities was subject to the following conditions:

'[I]t must be established … that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.'

The court also acknowledged, in view of the operational choices that must be made in terms of priorities and resources, that the positive obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an excessive burden on states and public authorities.
Answer
?

Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
In [ case ] it was held that the positive obligation on the state was for its authorities (in this case the police) to take preventative measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another private individual. However, the court stated that this obligation on the authorities was subject to the following conditions:

'[I]t must be established … that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.'

The court also acknowledged, in view of the operational choices that must be made in terms of priorities and resources, that the positive obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an excessive burden on states and public authorities.
Answer
Osman v UK, (2000) 29 EHRR 245
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Osman v UK, (2000) 29 EHRR 245 it was held that the positive obligation on the state was for its authorities (in this case the police) to take preventative measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from

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.