Traduction de «mitigating the onus proof » (Anglais → Français) :

Its recitals also refer to the UN Convention on Transnational OC where State Parties may consider the possibility of requiring an offender to show the lawful origin of alleged proceeds of crime, including by reversing the onus and/or lightening the standard of proof .

An examination should be made of the possible need for an instrument which, taking into account best practices operating in the Member States and with due respect to fundamental legal principles, introduces the possibility of mitigating, under criminal, civil or fiscal law, as appropriate, the onus of proof regarding the source of assets held by a person convicted of an offence related to organised crime.

The possibility of the mitigation of the burden of proof, after the conviction of the offender for a serious offence, concerning the origin of assets held by the offender should be considered. Such mitigation would require that the sentenced person proves that he or she has acquired the assets in question in a legal manner.

Once the criminal origin of the assets has been proved, using the lower civil burden of proof, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove the legitimate origin of the assets.

The aim of the framework decision is to ensure that all EU countries have effective rules governing the confiscation of proceeds from crime, especially in relation to the onus of proof regarding the source of assets held by a person convicted of an offence related to organised crime.

Whereas the protection afforded by the registered trade mark, the function of which is in particular to guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin, is absolute in the case of identity between the mark and the sign and goods or services; whereas the protection applies also in case of similarity between the mark and the sign and the goods or services; whereas it is indispensable to give an interpretation of the concept of similarity in relation to the likelihood of confusion; whereas the likelihood of confusion, the appreciation of which depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, of the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, of the degree of similar ...[+++]ity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified, constitutes the specific condition for such protection; whereas the ways in which likelihood of confusion may be established, and in particular the onus of proof, are a matter for national Procedural rules which are not prejudiced by the Directive;