evidence, Mr   Bernard’s lawyer requested in his submissions that a formal note be entered in the record to the effect that the experts had stated an opinion on the question of the applicant’s guilt

guilt had been established.

This does not include the finding of criminal guilt, which is not a constitutive element of a criminal offence according to German legal methodology (see paragraph 30 above).

The High Court did not therefore agree with the applicant’s opinion that her guilt had not been proven and found it established that the questions of guilt and sentencing had been decided on before the

    When determining a punishment, a court shall take into consideration: 1)     the dangerousness of the criminal act; 2)     the form and type of guilt; 3)    

The failure retrospectively to declare the applicant innocent could not be equated with an implied or express suspicion of guilt. 36.

    The measure in question was not a punitive one; its purpose was not to determine guilt but to recreate the status quo ante after criminal offences had been committed.

En l’affaire Guill c.

CHATEAU SARAH Société SOCIETE D'AMENAGEMENT ET D'EQUIPEMENT DU GARD (SEG ARD) Grosse délivrée le à SCP BCEP Me MONTI Selarl Celine Guille COUR D'APPEL

DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE NIMES 04 avril 2024 RG:22/05209 [B] C/ [I] [D] Copie exécutoire délivrée le 16 octobre 2025 à : Me Géraldine Brun Me Céline Guille

Les autres requérantes l’ont présentée en leur nom et au nom de leurs maris défunts, Ahmad Fatah Hassan, Abdula Teli Hussein, Abdulkadir Izat Khan Hassan, Abdulrahman Mohammad Sherriff et Guli Zekri Guli

dans l'affaire opposant : DEMANDERESSE Madame [H] [I] [Z] épouse [L] née le [Date naissance 4] 1988 à [Localité 11] de nationalité Française, demeurant [Adresse 7] représentée par Maître Céline GUILLE

18/0057 APPELANT : Monsieur [F] [S] né le 27 Octobre 1965 à [Localité 6] (61) de nationalité Française [Adresse 2] [Localité 1] Représenté par Me Sylvain RECHE substituant Me Gaëlle GUILLE-MEGHABBAR

A D, représenté par la SCP Reche-Guille-Meghabbar, a demandé au juge des référés du tribunal administratif de Montpellier d'ordonner une expertise aux fins d'apprécier la nature et les conséquences des

    The applicant argued that the failure to involve him in the proceedings in which his guilt for the accident of 14   August 2009 had been determined had constituted a breach of his right

They had also ignored the principle of the presumption of innocence and of in dubio pro reo , as well as permitted the victim’s sole evidence to be enough for the finding of guilt (despite the Court of

The reasoning provided by the European Court [of Human Rights] in its judgment [in the case of Rashad Hasanov and Others ] makes it impossible to conclude that [the applicants’] guilt was proven.

In his pleadings of 16   December   1994 the applicant also asserted that the prosecutor’s arguments in support of his guilt were ill-founded, and that the case-file contained no valid evidence

to determine this issue because, even assuming that Article 6 § 2 were to be applicable, the reasoning and the language employed in the Ankara Labour Court’s decision, did not amount to a finding of guilt