Self-defence And State Of Necessity

Self-defence And State Of Necessity

Self-defence

The unjustified attack must only be caused by human beings.
Self-defence cannot be used against self-defence.
The perpetrator’s liability for compensation disappears
If the perpetrator himself causes an unjustified attack, he may benefit from self-defence.
The unjust attack must be ongoing.
There must be an unjustified attack that is realised, realised or repeated.
There must be a ratio between the attack and the damages in defence.
In order for the act to be considered unjust, the perpetrator does not have to be attributable or punishable.
The unjust attack can be either an executive or a negligent one, therefore self-defence is possible against negligent and executive attacks.
In order for the perpetrator to benefit from self-defence, the wrongful act does not have to constitute a crime.

State of Necessity

There must be a grave and imminent danger.
The perpetrator must not knowingly cause the danger.
Grave and imminent danger may be caused by human behaviour, animal attacks or natural phenomena.
The perpetrator must not be obliged to face the danger (the police cannot leave the rally site and run away).
A person who faces a grave and imminent danger shall not be punished for damage caused to a third party or his property.
A person who faces a grave and imminent danger may utilise this right to protect his or her rights or the rights of a third party.
There must be a proportion between the grave and imminent danger and the damage to another person’s right.
The protected right must be equal to or superior to the sacrificed right.
The perpetrator is liable for compensation.

You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.