That applies equally to the innocent and the guilty.

On 30 June 2009 these proceedings were discontinued because the applicant’s guilt was considered to be of a minor nature and because prosecution was not in the public interest. 2.

On 26 September 2011 the applicant appeared in court for the first time and pleaded not guilty. The case was postponed several times, mainly because the court did not have time to hear the case.

    On 14 March 2008 the Court of First Instance found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment.

    “Substantial evidence of guilt” 30.

The Regional Court furthermore imposed a fine of 100,000 Dutch guilders on the first applicant.

The applicant was found guilty and served his prison sentence in 2008.

The parties have reached a friendly settlement providing for an ex gratia payment to the applicant of 2,000 guilders (NLG).

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête, enregistrée le 4 février 2025, Mme A, représenté par Me Guillier, demande au juge des référés : 1°) d'ordonner, sur le fondement des dispositions de l'article

On 10 April 2006 the Zagreb County Court found the applicant guilty on charges of rape and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.

reflect a negative perception of the defendant’s case, it could not be deduced from the interview as a whole that the juror in question had begun the trial with a preconceived idea about the applicant’s guilt

In a court hearing the applicant denied his guilt and said that between 10 and 12 a.m. on 14 September 2004 he had been at a trolleybus stop together with A., O. and B.

On 20   January 2020 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.

result, the applicant had had no opportunity to adduce evidence at an adversarial hearing, prior to the court’s decision in her case, to show that the offences had actually occurred and that she was not guilty

On 7 December 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice finally found G.R. and G.P. guilty of group rape and forced sodomy (Articles 171 (2) c) and 172 (2) c) of the Criminal Code) and sentenced them to five and

be considered as a second instance, as far as most of the appeals on points of law were being rejected by the Supreme Court based on lack of objective interest, without any review of the element of guilt

In the present case, the applicant was found guilty of a serious political offence, namely of having played an active role in an association which aimed at, inter alia , undermining the autonomy and independence

représentée par Me Marc DEBEUGNY, avocat au barreau de DUNKERQUE DEFENDEURS Madame [P] [DH], [T] [V] née le 18 Septembre 1992 à [Localité 5], demeurant [Adresse 1] représentée par Me Guillaume GUILLUY

The applicant pleaded not guilty and decided not to give evidence. Exercising his right to testimonial privilege, her husband likewise did not give evidence at trial.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête, enregistrée le 19 mars 2025, Mme A B, représentée par Me Guillier, demande au juge des référés, sur le fondement des dispositions de l'article L. 521-1 du