charges on the ground that some of the applicant’s allegations concerning X’s physical conditions had been disproved by an expert, thus making it impossible, in the domestic courts’ view, to prove X’s guilt

The Court saw no serious reason to substitute its own assessment for that of the domestic courts, which had been careful to assess the applicant’s guilt based on the assessment criteria defined by the

right to be presumed innocent had been infringed as a result of the police officers having informed the media of the content of his investigation file, as well as of their statements concerning his guilt

The significance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor’s possible guilt is irrelevant.   5.

xa0; In the case of Garycki the Katowice Court of Appeal in its decision of 30 October 2001 and in the case of Finster the Gdańsk Court of Appeal in its decision of 19 March 2008 stated, before their guilt

However, a judge’s impartiality would be undermined if judgments which he had previously delivered referred to or anticipated the defendant’s guilt in cases yet to be decided.

By a letter of 2 January 2014 the applicant was informed that his request was accepted in part, namely in so far as his finding of guilt would be removed from his police conduct certificate, as an act

It follows that [the applicant’s] guilt in the commission of an administrative offence under Article 13.15(9) of the Code of Administrative Offence has been established.” 7.

The significance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor’s possible guilt is irrelevant.   5.

It found that it was impossible to establish the applicant’s guilt since the depositions of the witnesses heard had been contradictory on some crucial points.

. 2124 of 11 March 2016 by the Bucharest District Court in case no. 17739/303/2013), and, on the other hand, the civil courts subsequently failed to take into account the criminal courts’ finding of guilt

Although “the state of the evidence” could be understood as indicating the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt and, in general, those circumstances could be relevant factors, in the

  In a decision of 13 November 1993 Brindisi District Court dismissed an application by the applicant for his release, holding that there was “substantial evidence” of his guilt ( gravi indizi di

The District Court held that T.’s guilt was confirmed, in particular, by the applicant’s testimony and a medical certificate issued on 31 March 2003 by the emergency station of the Volgograd outpatient

In the Court’s view, although the existence and persistence of substantial evidence of guilt might be relevant factors, they did not in themselves justify such a long period of pre-trial detention.

What is the relevance in this context of the fact that the element of guilt is not amenable to a review by the Supreme Court?     APPENDIX   No.

  By decision of 14 December 1998, the Groningen District Court Judge ordered the applicants to reimburse, in monthly instalments of 130   Netherlands Guilders (NLG), the Zuidhorn municipal authorities

In the first set of proceedings he had not adopted a judgment finding the applicant guilty or innocent and no evidence relevant for the determination of his guilt was ever assessed.

At the hearing he admitted his guilt and stated that his common-law wife, the second applicant, and their minor daughter, as well as the second applicant’s child who lived with them, were Russian nationals