Following a final criminal appeal judgment 10 October 2016 finding the applicant guilty of fraud, the applicant was sentenced to a jail term and a suspended temporary disqualification from public office

The regional court found the applicant guilty and ordered him to pay damages to X.

    The applicant submitted in particular that, in the course of reviewing his detention on remand, the Novi Sad District Court had, on 2 April 2004, declared him guilty before his guilt had

  The Regional Court found him guilty on all counts on 7 June 1984 and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 1,000,000 Netherlands guilders (NLG).   11.

    The Court has held that an ultimate finding of guilt cannot negate the applicant’s initial right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (see Matijašević v.

    The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 2 safeguards the right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.

The third applicant was found guilty of having actively taken part in the riot and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

According to the materials in the case file, the applicant pleaded not guilty and denied his involvement in any offence imputed to him.

The applicant admitted his guilt in one of the episodes incriminated to him and partially admitted his guilt as regards one more episode imputed to him.

It was inconceivable for a system to allow the punishment of a person who had been found innocent, or in any case had not been found criminally liable in a verdict as to his guilt.

The explicit and unqualified character of the statements contained in the domestic courts’ judgments amounted to a pronouncement on V.V.’s guilt before he had been proved guilty, in breach of his right

and established by a court verdict of guilty.

They pointed out that the phrase “to determine correctly the question of [the applicant’s] guilt” should be interpreted as “to determine whether the applicant was guilty or not” and not as a statement

In doing so it had identified a state of lingering suspicion which did not imply any finding of guilt. 20.

    On 18 November 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court found the applicant guilty of attempting to obtain property by deception.

The Regional Court imposed a fine of 600,000 Dutch guilders on the applicant company and obliged it to pay the State 50,000 Dutch guilders to deprive it of the estimated financial advantages it had obtained

The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of theft of documents, guilty in part to the charge of robbery, and not guilty to the charge of murder.

Germany - 54963/08 Judgment 27.3.2014 [Section V] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Statement in expert report that applicant was guilty of criminal offence of which he had been acquitted:

Decision refusing compensation might raise an issue under Article 6 §   2 if supporting reasoning amounted in substance to a determination of guilt without accused having previously been proved guilty