Directive 2011/92/EU article 5.2 would suggest no less than 1 year of imprisonment. Depending on how kindly you read the other articles, and given how much pornography instances he had, I'd argue for more.
Directive 2011/92/EU article 5.2 would suggest no less than 1 year of imprisonment. Depending on how kindly you read the other articles, and given how much pornography instances he had, I'd argue for more.
I'm slightly confused here; the EU Directive you are listing has absolutely no bearing on this discussion or the case at all?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/92/oj/eng
Article 5.2 concerns environmental impact assessments?
Even ignoring all this, Directives do not themselves automatically become enforceable in member State's legal systems either - "Regulations" do, and this is not one, the trial will be conducted subject to Danish criminal law.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)
Hmm… “DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 December 2011, on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA”
I wonder if made a mistake, but that's the one I had open. I understand it doesn't impose specific penal choices, but I still think the punishment was fairly lenient.