among which 470.000 guilders for lawyers' fees - on the basis of Section 591 (a) para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

guilt has been established by a court (see Konstas v.

The fact that the applicant had not been named as a guilty party in the judgment endorsing the plea-bargain agreement and that the court had by that judgment ruled on the guilt of the co-accused (who had

In particular, do the decisions of the domestic courts reflect the opinion that the applicants were guilty, notwithstanding the absence of a formal finding of guilt?

On the same day, it was reported in a newspaper article that the Prosecutor General had confirmed that he had “enough sound evidence of the guilt” of the applicant.

        On 18 October 1991 the applicant applied to withdraw his pleas of guilty.

    The Court first notes that the offence of which the applicant was found guilty was punishable with six months’ to five years’ imprisonment.

The Regional Court had not re-examined the question of the applicant’s guilt, rather it had referred to the reasons for which the majority of the jury had voted “not guilty”, and had concluded that the

On 15 April 2015 a court found the applicant guilty of committing the contravention and sanctioned her with an administrative fine.

Where the person concerned had not actually been found guilty of the crimes in question, confiscation of such assets was a particularly inappropriate measure.

Sadly, we lacked one juror’s vote for a guilty verdict.

Therefore, [there is] insufficient evidence of [the applicant’s] guilt for having committed a crime under Article 307 § 2 of the [CCU].

The Regional Court had not re-examined the question of the applicant’s guilt, rather it had referred to the reasons for which the majority of the jury had voted “not guilty”, and had concluded that the

Furthermore, that finding of guilt had to become final before it could be held against the person concerned.

The court held that B.’s confessions could not serve a basis for establishing his guilt since he was suffering from schizophrenia. Other evidence in support of his guilt was absent.

Belgium [GC] - 34238/09 Judgment 29.11.2016 [GC] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adequate procedural safeguards in place to enable accused to understand reasons for jury’s guilty

The Regional Court had neither established the applicant's guilt nor treated him as being guilty.

Consequently, only two questions had been put to the jury about the applicant’s guilt.

Decisions taken in this context could not be regarded as requiring a prior determination of guilt.

découvertes dans les locaux de Maurice X... et commercialisées par ce dernier ; qu'en outre ces marchandises avaient été transportées dans des camions appartenant à Maurice X... sous le couvert de la société Guila