Case Law

The Case Law database provides access to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports), the Committee of Ministers (resolutions), and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Presumption of Innocence (31 Entries)

Displaying 1-10 of (31)


CASE DATE:
Thursday, 11 Dec 2014
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Committee judgment (repetitive case). Violation of Article 6.2
SUBJECT MATTER:

Unlawfulness of pre-trial detention. Right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court. Presumption of innocence.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants alleged unlawfulness of their pre-trial detention on various criminal charges such as membership of an organised criminal group, extortion by threat, theft and causing grave bodily injury. They also alleged a violation of the right to presumption of innocence in that domestic courts, in decisions extending their detention, stated that they had committed the offences of which they stood accused.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1(c), 5.3, 5.4, 6.2

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 13 Nov 2014
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5.1(b) and (e), 4, 6.1 and 3(c). No violation of Article 8.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Person of unsound mind. Right to liberty and security. Lawful arrest or detention. Speediness of review. Right to a fair trial. Right to a defence. Right to respect for private and family life.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleges that her deprivation of liberty and subsequently in the psychiatric hospital was unlawful and that the decision to order her confinement was not reviewed by the courts. She further complains that the criminal proceedings against her took an unreasonably long time and that the courts failed to hear her in person. Finally, she is complaining that the authorities contacted the press when she was taken by force to the psychiatric hospital, resulting in the publication of her photos in various newspapers, and that she was ill-treated by the police officers who took her to the hospital.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.4, 6.1, 6.3(c), 3, 8

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 28 Oct 2014
STATE:
Switzerland
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6.2
SUBJECT MATTER:

Presumption of innocence. Right to a fair trial. Discontinuance of criminal proceedings.


  • DETAIL:

    Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), the applicant complained that the terms used by the Principal Public Prosecutor in a decision discontinuing the criminal proceedings against him, and the ensuing court decisions, had breached his right to be presumed innocent.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.2

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 23 Oct 2014
STATE:
Portugal
OUTCOME:
Violations of Article 6.2 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence. Protection of property. Peaceful enjoyment of possessions.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complains of being treated, in the context of the tax enforcement proceedings, as though she were guilty of an offence of which she had been acquitted. She further contends that the seizure of her shares in another company amounted to unjustified interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.2, 7, Article 1 of Protcol No. 1

CASE DATE:
Monday, 13 Oct 2014
STATE:
Azerbaijan
OUTCOME:
Violations of Articles 5.1 and 5.4, 6.2 and Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Lawful arrest or detention. Reasonable suspicion. Review of lawfulness of detention. Bringing before competent legal authority. Presumption of innocence. Limitation on use of restrictions on rights. Right to information.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant, a politician, alleged that there had not been a “reasonable suspicion” against him, within the meaning of Art. 5 § 1, to justify his arrest and prolonged detention; that the public statement issued by the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the criminal charges against him led the public believe that he was guilty before he had been proven guilty under the law (violation of Art. 6 § 2 – the principle of the presumption of innocence); and that the restriction of his liberty had been applied for purposes other than bringing him before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (violation of Art. 18 juncto Art. 5).


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.4, 6.2, 18 in conjunction with 5

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 11 Sep 2014
STATE:
Austria
OUTCOME:
"...the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules: "1. EU law and, in particular, Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which ordinary courts hearing an appeal or adjudicating at final instance are under a duty, if they consider a national statute to be contrary to Article 47 of the Charter, to apply, in the course of the proceedings, to the constitutional court for that statute to be generally struck down, and may not simply refrain from applying that statute in the case before them, to the extent that the priority nature of that procedure prevents — both before the submission of a question on constitutionality to the national court responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and, as the case may be, after the decision of that court on that question — all the other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right or fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. On the other hand, EU law and, in particular, Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation to the extent that those ordinary courts remain free: "– to make a reference to the Court at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate, and even at the end of the interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality, in respect of any question which they consider necessary, "– to adopt any measure necessary to ensure interim judicial protection of rights conferred under the EU legal order, and "– to disapply, at the end of such an interlocutory procedure, the national legislative provision at issue if they consider it to be contrary to EU law. "It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the national legislation at issue before it can be construed in such a way as to meet those requirements of EU law. "2. Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, if a national court appoints, in accordance with national legislation, a representative in absentia for a defendant upon whom the documents instituting proceedings have not been served because his place of domicile is not known, the appearance entered by that representative does not amount to an appearance being entered by that defendant for the purposes of Article 24 of that regulation."
SUBJECT MATTER:

Article 267 TFEU — National constitution — Interlocutory procedure for the mandatory review of constitutionality — Assessment as to whether a national law is consistent both with EU law and with national constitutional law — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Where the defendant has no known domicile or place of residence in the territory of a Member State — Prorogation of jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance — Court-appointed representative in absentia for the defendant



CASE DATE:
Monday, 8 Sep 2014
STATE:
Georgia
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence. Report of criminal cases. Plea bargain.


  • DETAIL:

    The first applicant complained that the plea-bargaining procedure was unfair and had amounted to an abuse of process, that he had not been able to appeal against the decision approving the plea bargain, and that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached by the extensive media coverage of his arrest and comments made by the regional governor in a television interview.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 6.2, Article 1 to Protcol No. 1, Article 34

CASE DATE:
Monday, 8 Sep 2014
STATE:
Germany
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence.



CASE DATE:
Thursday, 24 Jul 2014
STATE:
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Articles 5.3 and 5.4
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Concrete and sufficient reasons for detention on remand. Oral hearing. Equality of arms. Presumption of innocence. Pre-trial detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants complain about the court orders extending their detention on remand and the proceedings for review of those orders. They allege in particular that the courts did not give concrete and sufficient reasons for their detention; that there was no oral hearing in the proceedings for review of their detention; and, that those proceedings were not adversarial because the public prosecutor’s written observations in reply to their appeals against the orders to extend their detention were not communicated to them. They also allege that the wording of the extension orders amounted to a declaration of their guilt.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2

CASE DATE:
Monday, 7 Jul 2014
STATE:
Malta
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complains that the appeal court’s civil judgments, in particular statements to the effect that he was responsible for receiving certain stolen goods – despite the fact that he had been acquitted of most of the charges in respect of the stolen goods – were incompatible with his right to be presumed innocent.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.2

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

JUSTICIA European Rights Network