On 14 March 2000, the fourteenth applicant was found not guilty by a DCM of three offences of theft but pleaded guilty to a charge of absence without leave.

        The applicant was found guilty of 7 of the charges.

It is for you to decide whether it is proper to hold the defendant’s failure to give evidence against him when deciding whether he is guilty.

In 2019 the applicant was found guilty of the criminal offence of serious shaming ( teško sramoćenje ) of her neighbours for stating in front of three people, privately in an office, that they were “criminals

.) - 41954/98 Decision 14.9.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Principle of multiplicity of sentences: inadmissible In 1988, the applicant was found guilty of,

When determining the sentence the domestic courts held, inter alia, that giving them a suspended sentence was justified in view of their pleading guilty to the offence and facilitating the speedy conduct

A..., représentée par Me Guillier, demande à la juge des référés, saisie sur le fondement des dispositions de l’article L. 521-1 du code de justice administrative, dans le dernier état de ses écritures

siège est..., en cassation d'un arrêt rendu le 20 décembre 1995 par la cour d'appel de Paris (5e chambre, section A), au profit : 1/ de la société Le Groupe de Montgelas, anciennement dénommé la Guilde

FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE COMMERCIALE, FINANCIERE ET ECONOMIQUE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Donne acte aux sociétés Transmagu SL, Calleja de la Rosa Fransisco, Inexpress SL et Transpost Guily

par la société Centrasif, qui ont, l'une et l'autre, une activité saisonnière ; qu'au cours de l'été 1989, cette société a transféré l'activité de l'établissement où étaient occupés les salariés de Guilly

In the third set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the police officer’s lawful order and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest,   Prot. 7 Art. 2

[the applicant’s] guilt for the criminal offence under Article 159 § 3 ... is completely proven by the preponderance of evidence collected.” 14.

submit, first, that during the confiscation order procedure the applicant was not “charged with a criminal offence” within the meaning of Article 6 § 2, since the court was not required to determine guilt

On that day the Kerch Town Court (“the first-instance court”) found the applicant guilty of that offence and imposed on him ten days of detention.

Having examined witnesses and heard closing statements of the parties, on the same day, it found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 5 years in prison. 7.

He entered a not guilty plea.   The Riga Regional Court found him guilty and imposed an immediate six-year custodial sentence.

C/ EURL GUIL NET Décision déférée à la cour : jugement du Conseil de prud'hommes-Formation de départage de FORT DE FRANCE, décision du 11 Février 2014, enregistrée sous le no F. 12/ 00749 APPELANTE

(the first applicant’s son, who lives under the same roof with the applicant) guilty of involuntary grievous bodily harm of two minors, and of driving a van of the make Peugeot with registration number

The attackers were initially found guilty of insulting Ms Janković and sentenced to pay a fine in minor-offence proceedings brought against them by the police; however, those proceedings were ultimately