The applicant acknowledged her guilt in respect of the crimes. From 17 to 18 November 2004 the applicant was detained in the Lubny temporary detention facility.

It is possible for the judge to put one major question concerning the defendant’s guilt that would be a combination of the above questions (Article 339   §   2).

It appears that at approximately 5   a.m. the applicant was brought back to the ROVD premises where the applicant signed surrender with a confession of guilt in respect of the three counts of theft

Court dismissed the request stating that the Regional Court had acquitted the applicant pursuant to section 259 no. 3 Code of Criminal Procedure ( Strafprozeßordnung ), so only because the applicant’s guilt

It emphasised the fact that the results of the impugned police inspection had not influenced the decision on the applicant’s guilt and it considered his arguments regarding L.Č.’s cooperation with the

. in the 2016 remittal did not encompass a decisive assessment of the merits of the case; consequently, its role in 2018 did not expose its members to any need of abandoning a previous conviction of guilt

The Court has also held, in a criminal context, that where an appellate court has to make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without a direct assessment

sitting without the parties, upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, finding no indication of any errors of fact or law in it and concluding that the evidence in the case file supported the finding of guilt

Section I] Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for private life “Secondary victimisation” of a victim of sexual assault on account of comments in the reasoning of the judgment that were guilt-inducing

xa0;   On 19   May 2016 the Khabarovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court noting that, in contravention of the applicable laws, it contained a reference to V.’s guilt

On 21   April 2005 the Prague High Court ( vrchní soud ) quashed the judgment holding that the guilt of the applicant had not been yet proven beyond reasonable doubt and instructed the Regional Court

The guilt of an accused cannot be established on the basis of statements made by a person who has freely and wilfully eluded examination by the accused or his lawyer.   5.

The applicant submitted that the court had used his refusal to testify to support the findings about his guilt. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the Court of Appeal’s approach to the applicants’ compensation claim amounted to a determination of their guilt of a specific offence without their having

À cette date, en audience publique : La société [7] a comparu, représentée par Me GUILLE, et a conclu oralement à la diminution du taux d'IPP médical à 16% Elle se fonde sur le rapport médical du Docteur

FAITS ET PROCEDURE, Monsieur X..., propriétaire d'un véhicule GUILLER assuré auprès de la MACIF, a prêté son véhicule à Madame Y..., qui a occasionné un accident endommageant avec le véhicule le mur de

no 11/ 259 APPELANTE : SAS LABORATOIRES URGO 42 rue de Longvic 21300 CHENOVE représentée par Me Laurent SAUTEREL de la SELARL SAUTEREL, avocat au barreau de LYON substitué par Me Mickaël GUILLE

The aspects of the case which the Audiencia had had to analyse in order to determine the applicant’s guilt had been predominantly points of law: the judgment had stated quite clearly that it was not for

According to the interlocutory judgment drafted at that date, the lawyer noted that as the applicant had sought to escape trial she would allow the court to decide on her guilt and her appropriate punishment