W pleaded guilty and indicated that he would give evidence for the prosecution against his co-defendants. On 2 May 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob.

He considered that this meant in essence that the court had started from the idea that he would eventually be found guilty and that any redress could be given by mitigating his sentence. 3.

The Justice of the Peace found the applicants guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced them to fines of RUB 2,000.

  The applicant was found guilty of a breach, on 8 September 1988, of Section 13 para. 2 of the Federal Road Traffic Regulations (Verordnung über die Strassenverkehrsregeln).

By judgment of 26 October 2010 the Regional Court found the applicants guilty of hooliganism. They received custodial sentences and were put on parole.

He considered that this meant in essence that the court had started from the idea that he would eventually be found guilty and that any redress could be given by mitigating his sentence. 3.

He relied on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

He maintains in particular that he was not presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law and, furthermore, complains of the fact that the courts rejected his request for supplementary evidence

against the statements made by public officials and the main witness against him (I.M.) and the dissemination of covert material had contributed to the creation of a public perception that he had been guilty

On 8 September 2005 a court found him guilty of unlawful consumption of drugs (Article 6.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences).

Jugement du 14 Mai 2012 -Tribunal de Grande Instance de CRETEIL - RG n° 10/10211 APPELANTS Monsieur [Y] [L] [M] [Adresse 4] [Localité 3] Représenté et assisté par la SELARL MOREAU GERVAIS GUILLOU

The applicant asserts that he was also asked by the Commanding Officer at that hearing whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty and submits that he said that he pleaded guilty.

Accordingly, while the indictment specified the evidence justifying a trial, it did not explain the reasons why the jury subsequently found the accused guilty.

R.C. was found guilty and fined for insulting the applicant’s family and causing minor bodily injuries to the applicant’s mother.

de l'AARPI GUILLOT SANCHEZ AARPI, avocat au barreau de PARIS plaidant par Me Caroline BRUMM-GODET de la SAS IMPLID AVOCATS ET EXPERTS COMPTABLES, avocat au barreau de LYON Madame [G] [E] [Adresse

. : 07 / 00034 CONSEIL DE PRUD' HOMMES D' AVIGNON 30 novembre 2006 Section : Industrie SA GROUPE GUILLIN HOLDING C / X...

. : 07 / 00035 CONSEIL DE PRUD' HOMMES D' AVIGNON 30 novembre 2006 Section : Industrie SA GROUPE GUILLIN HOLDING C / X...

before he has been proved guilty according to law.