A été entendu au cours de l’audience publique le rapport de Mme Charbit. Les parties n’étaient ni présentes, ni représentées.

A été entendu au cours de l’audience publique le rapport de Mme Charbit. Les parties n’étaient ni présentes, ni représentées.

  The applicant company was charged with the following offences:     A.

On the way, Mr Girgvliani suggested stopping off at the Café Chardin for a coffee. According to L.B.

The case received massive media coverage, both before and after the police investigation that led to the applicant being charged. 6.

They were charged on 19   April 1990. 21.

with the offence or when he was charged with the offence.

Shortly afterwards, the second applicant was charged with the same offence.

Having regard to the nature, character and type of offences with which the accused are charged, as well as the gravity of the charges, the potential penalty ... the panel considers that there is a real

He was subsequently brought before the Lublin District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy) and charged with armed robbery.

A B, représenté par Me Chardon demande au tribunal : 1°) de condamner l'Etat à lui payer la somme globale de 25 052 euros, somme à parfaire, en réparation des préjudices qu'il estime avoir subis du fait

24530/94 Judgment 21.12.2000 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Absence of proper and speedy review of lawfulness of detention: violation Facts : The applicant was charged

tribunal Impartiality of judge having previously participated in confirmation of indictment: inadmissible In an order made by Madrid Central Military Judge No. 1 the applicant, a regular soldier, was charged

Law : Article 6 § 2 – Applicability : The Government submitted that Article 6 § 2 was not applicable because the applicant had not been charged with an offence in the defamation proceedings complained

On 31 May 2007 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, but this judgment was quashed on appeal on 29 January 2008.

36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 24 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45768/12 Sinan ERASLAN against Turkey lodged on 7 May 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was charged

The audit detected a number of violations and the applicant was charged with two counts of abuse of power and two counts of the use of budgetary funds for unauthorised purposes.

On 28 August 2013 the applicant was charged by the police with an administrative offence, namely threatening and insulting V.I.