Post by account_disabled on Jan 8, 2024 10:19:46 GMT
Acase became difficult to conceive. In this case the Court found that the plaintiff was sanctioned for failing to present evidence in support of her complaint. In addition compared to the clarity of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which refer to the content of a request regarding its elements the Court revealed that the applicant was informed by the court of her omission and of the need to present the evidence within a period of days. He also noted that the court informed the plaintiff of the likely sanction to be applied.
However the plaintiff even assisted by a lawyer did not comply with the Country Email List courts directives and this without justifying her attitude. Taking into account these elements the Court assessed that the cancellation of the applicants request did not constitute a disproportionate interference in her right of access to the court. . In the Anghel Case against Romania Application no.
The decision of October remained final on March the European Court of Human Rights ruled next The Court recalls that in criminal matters the issue of the administration of evidence must be analyzed based on paragraphs and of Article . The first enshrines the principle of the presumption of innocence. Among other things he requires the court in fulfilling its role not to start from the preconceived idea that the defendant really committed the imputed act the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused. indicate to the accused the accusations brought against him to allow him to prepare and present his defense properly as well as for him to provide sufficient evidence for the presumption of guilt to be founded Barbera Messegue and Jabardo v. Spain Judgment of December Series A No. p. Bernard v. France
However the plaintiff even assisted by a lawyer did not comply with the Country Email List courts directives and this without justifying her attitude. Taking into account these elements the Court assessed that the cancellation of the applicants request did not constitute a disproportionate interference in her right of access to the court. . In the Anghel Case against Romania Application no.
The decision of October remained final on March the European Court of Human Rights ruled next The Court recalls that in criminal matters the issue of the administration of evidence must be analyzed based on paragraphs and of Article . The first enshrines the principle of the presumption of innocence. Among other things he requires the court in fulfilling its role not to start from the preconceived idea that the defendant really committed the imputed act the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused. indicate to the accused the accusations brought against him to allow him to prepare and present his defense properly as well as for him to provide sufficient evidence for the presumption of guilt to be founded Barbera Messegue and Jabardo v. Spain Judgment of December Series A No. p. Bernard v. France