The court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 10 days’ detention. On 31 March 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.

A common trial had been conducted against the applicant, R. and S. but following R.’s and S.’s admission of guilt at one of the hearings the charges against them were severed and they were tried separately

applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decisions given by the domestic courts, which refused to order a second expert examination of the applicant’s deceased wife and found him guilty

the victim from many years ago where she at the time had experienced her as a quiet and calm person”, the High Court considered that it was not capable of influencing her assessment of the question of guilt

The applicant was found guilty on charges of minor road traffic offences by a penalty notice of the Istria Police Department ( Policijska uprava istarska ) of 31 May 2013, and by a judgment of the Pula

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);        - held unanimously that the respondent state was to pay to the applicant company, within three months, 40 000 Netherlands guilders

On 18   August 2009 the Erzurum Assize Court with special jurisdiction found the applicant guilty of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to four terms

On 20 February 2006 the Adana Assize Court with special jurisdiction found the applicant guilty of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organization under Article   7 §   2 of

complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because, when overturning his acquittal, the court of appeal had failed to hear the witnesses whose testimony had been used to find him guilty

She was immediately issued with a penalty notice finding her guilty of the minor offence of speeding, fining her 1,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and ordering her to pay costs and expenses of the proceedings

complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that his case was not tried by an impartial tribunal and that the tribunal breached his right to the presumption of innocence by declaring him guilty

The first-instance court found him guilty as charged, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and imposed a security measure prohibiting him from driving motor vehicles for a period of four years.

On 4 May 2007 the Sabayil District Court found the first applicant guilty under Article 283.1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to ethnic, racial, social or religious hatred and hostility, committed publicly

could not be considered as a second instance, because the Supreme Court rejects most of the appeals on points of law based on lack of objective interest and therefore does not review the element of guilt

Mariana-Aurore RĂDULESCU against Romania lodged on 17 January 2018 communicated on 30 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty

of proceedings).It awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in compensation noting that the applicant had not been in gainful employment for the five years before his arrest, and that if he were to be found guilty

accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the Netherlands was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, the sum of 9   000 Dutch guilders

Freedom of expression Thirteen years’ imprisonment for pouring paint over statues of Atatürk: violation Facts – The applicant was sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment in 2007 after being found guilty

Tribunal de Commerce de PONTOISE N° RG : 2023R00044 Expéditions exécutoires Expéditions Copies délivrées le : 02.11.2023 à : Me Aurore BONAVIA, avocat au barreau de VAL D'OISE Me Sabrina GUILLIER