dans l'affaire opposant : DEMANDERESSE Madame [H] [I] [Z] épouse [L] née le [Date naissance 4] 1988 à [Localité 11] de nationalité Française, demeurant [Adresse 7] représentée par Maître Céline GUILLE

18/0057 APPELANT : Monsieur [F] [S] né le 27 Octobre 1965 à [Localité 6] (61) de nationalité Française [Adresse 2] [Localité 1] Représenté par Me Sylvain RECHE substituant Me Gaëlle GUILLE-MEGHABBAR

A D, représenté par la SCP Reche-Guille-Meghabbar, a demandé au juge des référés du tribunal administratif de Montpellier d'ordonner une expertise aux fins d'apprécier la nature et les conséquences des

    The applicant argued that the failure to involve him in the proceedings in which his guilt for the accident of 14   August 2009 had been determined had constituted a breach of his right

They had also ignored the principle of the presumption of innocence and of in dubio pro reo , as well as permitted the victim’s sole evidence to be enough for the finding of guilt (despite the Court of

The reasoning provided by the European Court [of Human Rights] in its judgment [in the case of Rashad Hasanov and Others ] makes it impossible to conclude that [the applicants’] guilt was proven.

In his pleadings of 16   December   1994 the applicant also asserted that the prosecutor’s arguments in support of his guilt were ill-founded, and that the case-file contained no valid evidence

to determine this issue because, even assuming that Article 6 § 2 were to be applicable, the reasoning and the language employed in the Ankara Labour Court’s decision, did not amount to a finding of guilt

That requirement of individualised liability involved a number of interrelated principles: – Article   7 precluded criminal liability based on collective guilt or guilt by association; liability had

Under the latter criminal law provision the court would be forced to convict him, given that he had admitted his guilt.

de la SCP GUEILHERS & ASSOCIES, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES Me Michelle DERVIEUX de la SELEURL MBD AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS

Christian Germain Maurice Y... ... 29290 LANRIVOARE représenté par la SCP JEAN LOUP BOURGES & LUC BOURGES assisté de Me Brigitte AVELINE INTIMÉE : Madame Martine Z... épouse Y... ... 29820 GUILERS

Guille B... C..., demeurant ..., en cassation d'un arrêt rendu le 30 avril 1999 par la cour d'appel de Fort-de-France (Chambre civile), au profit : 1 / de M. A..., Léon Z..., 2 / de Mme Y...

Stating that his guilt was of a particular gravity, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment.   The court stated that it had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article   6 no.

He requested payment of 25,000.00 Dutch guilders.

The court noted that G.’s guilt was confirmed by the conclusions of forensic medical examinations and that G. had “honestly repented”.

Court found that the criminal courts concerned had dismissed the applicants’ claims for compensation on the sole ground that, when they were placed in detention, there had been serious evidence of their guilt

The applicant denied his guilt, complained to the investigator that he had been ill-treated and confessed under duress, and requested to conduct his forensic medical examination.

In principle, a final conviction offered a guarantee of legal certainty compared with other possible findings of guilt in relation to the person supposedly unfit to inherit; this was in society’s interests