Traduction de «défendeur de mise en cause » (Français → Anglais) :

To be held jointly and severally liable, each defendant must be found to be the effective cause of the entire loss suffered by the plaintiff (101) Joint and several liability, as pointed out earlier, does not increase a defendant’s liability; in relation to the plaintiff, each defendant is 100% responsible.

1. Where an EAPO is set aside or modified, or its enforcement is suspended, or in the event that the claim is deemed to be unfounded during proceedings on the substance of the matter, the claimant shall be liable for any damage caused to the defendant as a result of the issue of the EAPO.

4. Firmly believes that a common minimum standard relating to procedural safeguards of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union will ensure that any individual present within the territory of a Member State (irrespective of his or her nationality and situation) is entitled to assistance from and representation by a lawyer and/or, where appropriate, a procurator (a professional practitioner who, in Spain, France and Portugal represents a party before the courts), from the moment when, as a suspect of complicity in crime, he or she is placed under arrest, taken into custody or ...[+++]charged with an offence by a public authority appropriately empowered to do so, and that such assistance or representation is provided free of charge if the suspect or defendant has insufficient means to pay for it and the provision of such services is required in the interests of justice; the technical defence of suspects and defendants shall be compulsory and indefeasible at every stage and level of criminal proceedings; considers that the right to legal assistance should embrace, at every stage and all tiers of the proceedings, the complete confidentiality of contacts between the defence lawyer and the suspect or defendant, the presence of the defence lawyer each time the suspect or defendant is questioned and his right to put questions both to the suspect or defendant and to any witnesses, and the right of the defence lawyer to submit evidence in exoneration;

5. Firmly believes that a common minimum standard relating to procedural safeguards of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (hereinafter 'common minimum standard) will ensure that any individual present within the territory of a Member State (irrespective of his or her nationality and situation) is entitled to assistance from and representation by a lawyer and / or, where appropriate, a procurator (a professional practitioner who, in Spain, France and Portugal represents a party before the courts), from the moment when, as a suspect of complicity in crime, he or she is placed under arrest, taken into c ...[+++]ustody or charged with an offence by a public authority appropriately empowered to do so, and that such assistance or representation is provided free of charge if the suspect or defendant has insufficient means to pay for it and the provision of such services is required in the interests of justice; the technical defence of suspects and defendants shall be compulsory and indefeasible at every stage and level of criminal proceedings; considers that the right to legal assistance should embrace, at every stage and all tiers of the proceedings, the complete confidentiality of contacts between the defence lawyer and the suspect or defendant, the presence of the defence lawyer each time the suspect or defendant is questioned and his right to put questions both to the suspect or defendant and to any witnesses, and the right of the defence lawyer to submit evidence in exoneration;

17. Believes that a minimum common standard should impose a requirement on the Member States to furnish suspects and defendants, as soon as they come into contact with a law enforcement official, with a written, readily comprehensible 'Letter of Rights’ which sets out their fundamental rights in a language they understand, and that in any event they should be informed by an official of the existence of charges against them; points out that this letter is not intended to take the place of the obligation to advise suspects that anything they say may be used in evidence against them, but should supplement that obligation; considers that t ...[+++]his letter must be furnished in a language the defendant immediately understands as soon as he/she comes into contact with a law enforcement official, and that a receipt should be signed by the defendant and set down in record, except in cases where in front of a lawyer he/she waives this right and declines to sign; is of the opinion that this letter must not replace the obligation to caution but should supplement it and that this letter must be furnished at the time the suspect or defendant first enters police custody and a receipt signed by the defendant and set down in record;

10. Considers that a minimum common standard should incorporate the requirement for all oral proceedings to be interpreted, from the very first time the suspect or defendant is questioned, in order to enable them to understand everything that is said, and should also stipulate that, where a conflict of interest arises, two different translators or interpreters may be necessary, with one for the defence and the other for the prosecution (the public prosecutor or judicial body as appropriate) and that all documents which the defendant must be able to understand if the trial is to be impartial and if the consultation thereof is to serve the defen ...[+++]ce of the accused must be translated, including: