.) - 37568/97 Decision 15.11.2001 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Revocation by court of suspension of prison sentence, on the basis of a finding of guilt in respect of a new

by law and declared guilty by an effective court judgment.

  In these decisions the Federal Constitutional Court stressed that the respective previous instances neither expressly stated the accused's guilt nor treated him as guilty.   II.

There was thus no judicial finding that the applicant was guilty of an offence of which he had been acquitted.

Nothing in those criteria called into question the innocence of an acquitted person and the legislation itself did not require criminal guilt to be assessed.

    At trial the applicant pleaded not guilty.

However, in Danish penal law there is no such thing as collective guilt.

  Some are more      consistent with guilt than others.   Not one of them, however, in      itself, proves guilt to the standard of proof required.

    On 10 April 2007 the jury returned a guilty verdict.

The court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment. His two co-accused were found guilty as well. They all appealed.

  The exclusion of compensation in the challenged provision was not based on guilt, but on continued existence of suspicion.

On 9   February 2016 the jury found the applicant guilty and on 19   February 2016 the Regional Court sentenced him to 18 years’ imprisonment.

    Article 40 § 1 of the Constitution of Georgia provides that “a person shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law and by a final decision of the court.”

   The applicant complains that the only evidence proving his guilt - the blood analysis - was obtained illegally and under English law was therefore ipso facto inadmissible in evidence.

disciplinary and administrative authorities had, through their reasoning or the language used in their decisions, allowed doubt to be cast on the applicant’s innocence even though he had not been found guilty

On 2 December 2002 the same district court found the applicant guilty of the charges under Article 319 of the Criminal Code.

On 25 June 2010 that court found the applicant guilty of having purchased cannabis for personal use and imposed on him a fine of 850 Ukrainian hryvnias.

without that guilt having been proved according to law.

In the context of the reopening of the proceedings, the applicants’ guilt was not legally established until 27   February 2008, when the Court of Cassation upheld the Assize Court judgment of 9 &#

As regards the other defendants, Judge M.Š.Š., on 14   July 2007, pronounced a judgment, finding, inter alia , B.Š. guilty of a continuing offence of abuse of office . 4 .