Judge A.P. considered that the applicant’s guilt was sufficiently established by the written explanations of judge M.J. and the registry staff member who had witnessed the incident.

Moreover it concluded that the applicant's guilt had been lawfully established and the proceedings viewed as a whole had been fair. Therefore no individual measure was envisaged.     II.

constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage; that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, for costs and expenses, 6   475 Dutch guilders

sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained;   – held, unanimously, that the respondent state was to pay to the applicant, within three months, 23   271 Dutch guilders

applicant's right to inform in an objective manner about public figure's trial but against unfavourable assessment of an element of evidence at the trial – applicant clearly stated opinion on accused's guilt

It noted that the issue of the applicant’s guilt or innocence was not at issue and that the first-instance court rightly chose the preventive measure given the gravity of the crime of which the applicant

The judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand taking into account the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the strong suspicion of guilt.

The court found that proof of the applicant’s guilt had been duly established during the trial in the first-instance court and Court of Appeal and that his actions had been properly classified under criminal

argued that the annulment of the contract and forfeiture of his security deposit solely on the basis that he was charged with a criminal offence, and in the absence of a final judgment establishing his guilt

The court considered that the evidence in its possession indicated to the applicant’s guilt “even assuming that the applicant was entrapped by V.Z.”.

leur rapport, composée de : Madame Christine DA LUZ, présidente Madame Corinne JACQUEMIN LAGACHE, conseillère Madame Véronique BOST, conseillère Greffier, lors des débats : Madame Aude-Marie GUILCHER

The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 13 January 1988, quashing the applicant's conviction of 10 March 1980 and acquitting him on the ground of lack of evidence of his guilt.

On each occasion the applicant had paid 100   Netherlands guilders (45 euros).

17 February 2012 the court held eighteen more hearings in the case and ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand having regard to the existence of facts indicating a strong suspicion of guilt

; Second detention Refusal to release applicant based on four grounds: (a)   Seriousness of the offences and severity of the sentence risked: existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt

their property in the absence of an examination of the legal requirements for ordering the confiscation of their assets, since there was no finding that a criminal offence had been committed and their guilt

the domestic court had wrongly assessed the evidence, had failed to obtain attendance of certain witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and, in general, had been predetermined to deliver a finding of guilt

with reference only to main point in respect of which applicant was convicted, Court not persuaded that prosecution appeal raised exclusively questions of law - although facts relating to question of guilt

The indictment division and the Court of Cassation dismissed all his applications on the ground that there was still serious evidence of his guilt, that it was in the interest of public safety to keep