comparante **************** S.A. [27] [Adresse 8] [Adresse 8] [Localité 11] représentée par Me Margot PAQUEREAU, plaidant/postulant, avocat au barreau de PARIS substituant Me Elisa GUEILHERS

    In principle, the accused’s personal attendance is required when a superior court has to examine a case as to the facts and the law and make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence

presumption of innocence requires that no State authority - not only a judge or court but also any other public authority   - declare that a person is guilty of having committed an offence before that guilt

Constitutional Court points out that the State Administration System Act establishes a system of responsibility of the State on the basis of the principle of causality ( causa) and not on the basis of guilt

The evidence of the applicant’s guilt was extensive.

The applicant asked that the proceedings be discontinued on the grounds that no sufficient evidence of his guilt had been found and there was no possibility to collect such evidence. 9.

The Court of Appeal considered that the Regional Court had thoroughly assessed the evidence and carefully considered the applicant’s guilt. The applicant requested that legal aid be granted to him.

Nor is there any indication that the judges had a preconceived attitude towards him concerning his guilt.

The same judges then had taken the decision to prosecute him, had tried the issues arising from his conduct, had determined his guilt and had imposed the sanction (a term of imprisonment) on him.

  Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants   598,499 Netherlands guilders (NLG) and 50 cents for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and legal

  Complaints   The applicants all complain that decisions taken by the Norwegian courts concerning these compensation claims were based on reasoning which contained assumptions of criminal guilt

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (impartiality of trial judge) - The issue determined in the bail revocation proceedings was entirely distinct from the question of the applicant’s guilt or innocence: the

Disclosure of psychiatric information: violation   Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Court decisions terminating proceedings on “non-exonerative” grounds left no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt

It also found that since the applicant’s guilt had been confirmed by the court, the police officers’ actions related to the applicant’s detention and questioning had been lawful.

In the course of the oral proceedings concerning the applicants’ guilt, one of the witnesses in question had appeared before the Assize Court and had been cross-examined by the defence.

Law – Article 6 § 1: The absence of reasons in a judgment, owing to the fact that the applicant’s guilt was determined by a lay jury, was not in itself contrary to the Convention.

Law – Article 6 § 1: The absence of reasons in a judgment, owing to the fact that the applicant’s guilt was determined by a lay jury, was not in itself contrary to the Convention.

Court that the applicant had incited her friend to commit certain crimes, which is a criminal offence in itself, while the criminal court could not reach this conclusion, amount to an implication of guilt

  36/2002, in force at the relevant time – provisions which the courts had to substitute of their own motion, in order to examine the question of the applicant’s guilt, for the obsolete legal basis

The courts can consider complaints that raise various problems of detention, including overcrowding, and award compensation without the prerequisite of establishing any official’s guilt or unlawful conduct