It further cited the fact that “his double talk reveal[ed] both his bad faith and his complete lack of regret or remorse”.

    Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.” Article 5 “1.

    The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 64.

[A] identifié lui aussi comme avocat, était couvert par le principe de la confidentialité entre avocats ou le secret professionnel ; qu'une distinction doit être faite entre le principe de confidentialité

FAITS I. LES CIRCONSTANCES DE L’ESPECE 12.    Né en 1937, M. James Malone habite à Dorking, dans le Surrey.

    The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. the applicant’s detention 5.

Principe 2 - Présomption d’innocence Le respect du principe de la présomption d’innocence fait partie intégrante du droit à un procès équitable.

  Particular circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     1.

    The case of the defence was that the Principal had never uttered the obscenities attributed to him by the applicant.

In particular the IAP reasoned as follows: “As the relevant fact, namely that the speed limit had been exceeded, remained undisputed during the proceedings, this can be taken as an established fact.

    In 2003 the applicant was fined for driving too fast, and in 2005 and 2006 for driving without a license. C.

Seven of them were challenged on account of the fact that they had security clearance. 35 .

    The Republic of Turkey, which is faced with a Kurdish national movement, is fast being driven into complex developments in the Middle East due to the fact that Turkey confines itself to the

du directeur des services fiscaux, et qui est à la base de l'infraction poursuivie a été exercée au cours de l'année 1993 ; que la plainte pour fraude fiscale ayant été déposée le 19 avril 2002, les faits

follows: Principle 15: “1.

It found that the investigating authority had failed to ensure a fair examination of the case and to carry out an objective and thorough investigation.

That fact alone was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. That remedy could be used in very exceptional circumstances of serious violations of law, which was not the case here.

Therefore, in the applicant’s view, the fact that Judge M.G. had been the president of the trial panel which had convicted him had violated his right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.

This fact is not disputed by the respondent Government.