Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 4:09:35 GMT -5
For the crime of illegal detention of art. 163.1 of the CP, he has been sentenced to four years in prison. Furthermore, the Court has stated that "even though the accused and his cronies had the intention of stealing, the victim's deprivation of liberty extended from 11 p.m. on the 19th to 4 p.m. on the following day the 20th in which they were arrested, so that not only was there a manifest excess in the time necessary to carry out their purpose, making the accused's interest in depriving the victim of her freedom of movement appear clear, but they gloated about the situation by broadcasting their regrettable attitude live . .
Likewise, the accused has been sentenced for the Fax Lists crime of injuries (art. 150 of the CP) to a sentence of three years and six months in prison; for the crime against moral integrity (aart.173.1 CP) to a sentence of six months in prison; and for the crime of damage (art. 263.1 CP) to a six-month fine at a daily rate of 3 euros, with subsidiary personal liability of one day in prison for every two unpaid installments.The ECtHR condemns the slowness of the judicial system: eight years to go through two instances
The court recalls that these delays put the effectiveness and credibility of the system at risk.
The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Belgium for violating the right to a fair judicial process, finding that the procedure, which has dragged on for almost eight years, has not been carried out in a reasonable time . Also remember that these delays in the administration of justice put the effectiveness and credibility of the system at risk.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, in 2015, before the Court of First Instance of Brussels to have the sale of an apartment annulled due to lack of consent . In the alternative, he requested that the defendants be ordered to pay him an amount equal to the difference between the sale price and the price of the property, or that the sales contract be declared null and void due to negligence and that the sale price be refunded. , or that compensation for damages be granted. He also requested that an expert be appointed to determine the value of the property and the cost of the works already carried out and pending to be carried out. In 2017, the court dismissed the request to annul the sale, but appointed an expert and re-filed the case. The defendants appealed this decision. The expert presented the report the following year.
Likewise, the accused has been sentenced for the Fax Lists crime of injuries (art. 150 of the CP) to a sentence of three years and six months in prison; for the crime against moral integrity (aart.173.1 CP) to a sentence of six months in prison; and for the crime of damage (art. 263.1 CP) to a six-month fine at a daily rate of 3 euros, with subsidiary personal liability of one day in prison for every two unpaid installments.The ECtHR condemns the slowness of the judicial system: eight years to go through two instances
The court recalls that these delays put the effectiveness and credibility of the system at risk.
The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Belgium for violating the right to a fair judicial process, finding that the procedure, which has dragged on for almost eight years, has not been carried out in a reasonable time . Also remember that these delays in the administration of justice put the effectiveness and credibility of the system at risk.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, in 2015, before the Court of First Instance of Brussels to have the sale of an apartment annulled due to lack of consent . In the alternative, he requested that the defendants be ordered to pay him an amount equal to the difference between the sale price and the price of the property, or that the sales contract be declared null and void due to negligence and that the sale price be refunded. , or that compensation for damages be granted. He also requested that an expert be appointed to determine the value of the property and the cost of the works already carried out and pending to be carried out. In 2017, the court dismissed the request to annul the sale, but appointed an expert and re-filed the case. The defendants appealed this decision. The expert presented the report the following year.