Source: http://eujusticia.net/case-law/category/presumption-of-innocence/
Timestamp: 2018-04-26 11:09:29
Document Index: 655905234

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', '§ 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 41', '§ 2', '§ 2', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 2', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 1']

Presumption of Innocence (31 Entries)
Displaying 1-10 of (31)
NEAGOE v ROMANIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-2) Presumption of innocence
The applicant complained of a violation of the presumption of innocence due to the statements of the President of Romania and the spokesman of the Galaţi Court of Appeal.
6. 6-2
REFERENCE: 23319/08 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156255
GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v GEORGIA
Monday, 12 Oct 2015 STATE:
Georgia OUTCOME:
Art. 6-1 inapplicable No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Civil proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing (Art. 6-2) Presumption of innocence (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 35-3) Abuse of the right of petition (P1-1) Protection of property (P1-1-1) Prescribed by law (P1-1-2) Control of the use of property Margin of appreciation Proportionality
All three applicants complained that the confiscation proceedings had been conducted in breach of the principle of equality of arms contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The first applicant complained that the confiscation of his property in the absence of a final conviction establishing his guilt amounted to an encroachment upon the principle of presumption of innocence.
6, 6-1, 6-2, 35, 35-3, P1-1, P1-1-1, P1-1-2
REFERENCE: 36862/05 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-154398
DİCLE AND SADAK v TURKEY
Wednesday, 16 Sep 2015 STATE:
Turkey OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal procedure, Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 - Right to free elections (general) (Article 3 of Protocol No 1 - Right to free elections, To stand for election) Non-violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Pecuniary damage - reparation (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage, Just satisfaction)
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-2) Presumption of innocence (Art. 13) Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13) Effective remedy (Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general} (Art. 41) Just satisfaction (Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage (P1-3) Right to free elections-{general} (P1-3) Right to free elections (P1-3) Stand for election
Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that their right to presumption of innocence was disregarded.
6, 6-2, 13, 41, P1-3
REFERENCE: 48621/07 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155188
ABDULLA ALI v THE UNITED KINGDOM
Tuesday, 30 Jun 2015 STATE:
United Kingdom OUTCOME:
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings, Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Judgement not yet final ("Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending" - "This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.")
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) Criminal proceedings (Art. 6-1) Fair hearing
6, 6-1
REFERENCE: 30971/12 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155715
ESHONKULOV v RUSSIA
Monday, 1 Jun 2015 STATE:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)
(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture (Art. 3) Expulsion (Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1-F) Expulsion (Art. 5-4) Review of lawfulness of detention (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6-2) Presumption of innocence
The applicant lastly complained that the wording of the extradition decision violated his right to be presumed innocent. Article 6 § 2 reads as follows: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
3, 5, 5-1-f, 5-4, 6 6-2
REFERENCE: 68900/13 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-150713
TONI KOSTADINOV v BULGARIA
Monday, 27 Apr 2015 STATE:
No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention, Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of the lawfulness of detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Reparations) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)
(Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Lawful arrest or detention (Art. 5-1-c) Reasonable suspicion (Art. 5-3) Length of pre-trial detention (Art. 5-4) Review of lawfulness of detention (Art. 5-5) Compensation (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6-2) Presumption of innocence
The applicant alleged that he was arrested despite the absence of sufficient data to suspect the commission of a criminal offense, that his detention continued beyond a reasonable period, he has not could effectively challenge the lawfulness and necessity of detention and has not had the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage suffered due to these facts. He further alleges that his presumption of innocence was undermined by the minister of the Interior in office at the time of the facts.
5, 5-1, 5-1-c, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 6, 6-2
REFERENCE: 37124/10 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-151067
CLEVE v GERMANY
Wednesday, 15 Apr 2015 STATE:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Charged with a criminal offence)
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Art. 6-2) Charged with a criminal offence
The applicant complained that statements made by the Regional Court in its judgment acquitting him amounted to a finding of guilt and had breached his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence as provided in Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention.
REFERENCE: 48144/09 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-150309
N.A. v Norway
Thursday, 18 Dec 2014 STATE:
Norway OUTCOME:
Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence.
The applicant complains that her right to be presumed innocent was breached as, in its decision on compensation, the Norwegian court linked the matter closely to the criminal case, in which she was acquitted; and that the hearing was unfair as the court failed to give adequate reasons for the decision to award compensation.
REFERENCE: 27473/11 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-148642
Thursday, 11 Dec 2014 STATE:
France OUTCOME:
"...the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules: "The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his return. "However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a competent national authority to warn the third-country national, prior to the interview arranged with a view to that adoption, that it is contemplating adopting a return decision with respect to him, or to disclose to him the information on which it intends to rely as justification for that decision, or to allow him a period of reflection before seeking his observations, provided that the third-country national has the opportunity effectively to present his point of view on the subject of the illegality of his stay and the reasons which might, under national law, justify that authority refraining from adopting a return decision. "The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that an illegally staying third-country national may have recourse, prior to the adoption by the competent national authority of a return decision concerning him, to a legal adviser in order to have the benefit of the latter’s assistance when he is heard by that authority, provided that the exercise of that right does not affect the due progress of the return procedure and does not undermine the effective implementation of Directive 2008/115. "However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to bear the costs of that assistance by providing free legal aid."
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect his interests — Return decision — Right to be heard before the return decision is issued — Extent of that right
...the tribunal administratif de Pau decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 1. a) What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of [the Charter] for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned? b) In particular, does that right include the right [for that foreign national] to be put in a position to analyse all the information relied on against him as regards his right of residence, to express his point of view, in writing or orally, with a sufficient period of reflection, and to enjoy the assistance of counsel of his own choosing? 2. If necessary, must the extent of that right be adjusted or limited in view of the general interest objective of the return policy set out in Directive [2008/115]? 3. If so, what adjustments or limitations must be made, and on the basis of what criteria should they be established?
Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (Returns Directive)
REFERENCE: C‑249/13 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160563&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first∂=1&cid=188895