In particular, the first-instance court allegedly shifted the burden of proof on the applicant in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure, its finding that the application was time-barred was erroneous and

of ill-treatment by the police on the first day of his detention and on 18 June 2010 refused to institute criminal proceedings into these allegations of the applicant on the ground that there was no proof

    Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see Selmouni , cited

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

Law – Article 3 (a)     Alleged ill-treatment – The applicant had failed to submit any details of his ill-treatment, or supply any proof that he had suffered any injuries.

In any event, the burden of proof concerning the effectiveness of this remedy would then be on the respondent State.

The Government in both these cases provided proof, which the applicants failed to refute, that they had been properly notified about the hearings in their respective cases.

ignoring the EU law and CJUE case-law applicable to his claim of reimbursement of health-care costs incurred with the medical treatment undergone in Austria, while the defendant party did not adduce the proof

interpretation of the 1991 Act, had established that the mere existence of a claim based on the decree of 1945 and the law of 1946 did not suffice and that it was necessary to show, with a minimum of proof

Merely wearing the red star could lead to a criminal sanction and no proof was required that its display amounted to totalitarian propaganda.

The article in question contained specific allegations of fact that were susceptible to proof.

    Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries had been caused (see Lyapin v.

In particular, the County Court, acting with bias and ignoring the evidence adduced by him, had reversed the burden of proof and imposed on him a duty to prove his innocence.

They held that the charge against him was “absurd” under the circumstances of the case and that, even within the scope of that charge, there was no proof of his guilt.

taking part in two demonstrations (held on 6   December 2010 and 19 April 2011) as a result of the general calls issued by the PKK operate as a presumption of fact capable of reversing the burden of proof

minister’s view on the applicant’s career advancement, the domestic courts had mistakenly qualified it as a statement of fact rather than a value judgment, the veracity of which was not susceptible of proof

On 3 February 2022, the applicant was taken with an ambulance called by his life partner and presented to the psychiatric hospital Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia, in Bucharest.

frequency of the use of a forename did not play a role in the assessment of its customary use ( Gebräuchlichkeit ), it could not be assumed that it was a common forename on the basis of only one single proof