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

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

ZADEH against the Czech Republic lodged on 20 January 2023 communicated on 24 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty

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

proceedings, by influencing public opinion and, by the same token, the members of the Competition Commission whose task it was to decide whether the companies concerned, including the applicant company, were guilty

On 15 July 2002 the district court found Mr Ch. guilty of assault, sentenced him to six months correctional labour suspended on probation and awarded the applicant damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary

Enfin, Monsieur X... demande que les frais d'assainissement à prévoir dans la maison de GUIPRY soit mis à la charge de Madame Y... pour moitié.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 30 juillet 2024, la société Engeco, la société Guilloux et M.

Il y a lieu, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, de mettre à la charge de l'Etat une somme de 800 (huit cents) euros à verser à Me Guillet, avocate de M.

His comments, including a promise to arrest the applicant, could have been construed as confirming his belief that Mr Kuzmin was guilty of the alleged offence.

    The Court further observes that in its decision, the Court of Appeal mentioned that the applicant company “was found guilty” (see paragraph 4 above).

It took into account that it would have been improbable that officials had been bribed into releasing her, had she actually been found guilty of adultery.

claim on the grounds that "she was not deemed more likely to be innocent than guilty of the conduct with which she was charged.”