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:
Monday, 7 Jul 2014
STATE:
Germany
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence.



CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
STATE:
Bulgaria
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 2, Protocol 1 to the Convention; no need to examine complaint under Article 6.2
SUBJECT MATTER:

Presumption of innocence. Right to education.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complains that he was not allowed to pursue his education while in prison. He also alleges that he was treated as a repeat reoffender prior to a final conviction in his case.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.2, Article 2 of Protocol 1

CASE DATE:
Monday, 7 Apr 2014
STATE:
Serbia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Articles 3 and 5.3
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to fair trial. Presumption of innocence. Press conference organised by the police. Distribution of photographs.



CASE DATE:
Monday, 24 Mar 2014
STATE:
Greece
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6.2
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence. Drug trafficking.



CASE DATE:
Monday, 17 Mar 2014
STATE:
Bulgaria
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 6.1
SUBJECT MATTER:

Public hearing. Presumption of innocence. Public judgments.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant argues she was not provided a fair hearing. She further contends that the confirmation of her dismissal by the domestic courts was tantamount to a declaration that she was guilty of the bribery offence, even though no guilt was established in the criminal proceedings.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 6.2, 8

CASE DATE:
Friday, 31 Jan 2014
STATE:
Croatia
OUTCOME:
Violations of Articles 5.3 and 5.4, Article 6.2
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Presumption of innocence. Right to have lawfulness of pre-trial detention reviewed speedily. Conditions of detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complaints that his pre-trial detention was excessively long – more than two years – and that it was ordered and extended without the authorities referring to concrete relevant facts or considering alternative preventive measures. He also alleges that the national courts repeatedly stated as a reason for ordering and extending his pre-trial detention that he had already been charged with similar drugs offences even though he had not actually been convicted but had similar criminal proceedings pending against him. Lastly, he complains about the conditions in which he was held.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 8 Jan 2014
STATE:
Albania
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Presumption of innocence. Right to a fair trial. Right to information.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged that that the testimony of the then Minister of Justice, who hinted at the applicant’s guilt, breached the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Art. 6 § 2. Furthermore, the domestic courts presumed him guilty on the basis of witnesses’ testimonies, which had been considered contradictory and unreliable.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1 and 6.3(a)-(d)

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 8 Jan 2014
STATE:
Albania
OUTCOME:
No violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3(a)-(d)
SUBJECT MATTER:

Statement of a public official. Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence. Right to information.



CASE DATE:
Monday, 9 Dec 2013
STATE:
Albania
OUTCOME:
Request for referral to the Grand Chamber submitted by the Government. Violation of Articles 3, 6.1, 6.3(c). No violation of Art. 6.2.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Presumption of innocence. Proper administration of justice. Public reporting of criminal cases. Right to fair trial.


  • DETAIL:

    Mr Kaçiu alleged that he had been badly beaten by police officers during his questioning and that the ensuing investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had been inadequate. Furthermore, both applicants alleged numerous complaints under Art. 6 about the unfairness of the proceedings against them, in particular due to the admission of statements extracted from Mr Kaçiu under duress, which had then been used to convict them. Mr Kaçiu further complained that he had been denied access to a lawyer during his police custody. In addition, the applicants complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 10 Sep 2013
STATE:
Netherlands
OUTCOME:
"...the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: "European Union law, in particular Article 15(2) and (6) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the extension of a detention measure has been decided in an administrative procedure in breach of the right to be heard, the national court responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that extension decision may order the lifting of the detention measure only if it considers, in the light of all of the factual and legal circumstances of each case, that the infringement at issue actually deprived the party relying thereon of the possibility of arguing his defence better, to the extent that the outcome of that administrative procedure could have been different."
SUBJECT MATTER:

Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons – Immigration policy – Illegal immigration and illegal residence – Repatriation of illegal residents – Directive 2008/115/EC – Return of illegally staying third-country nationals – Removal process – Detention measure – Extension of detention – Article 15(2) and (6) – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Infringement – Consequences


  • DETAIL:

    "This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 15(6) 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 (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). "The request has been made in proceedings between Mr G. and Mr R., on the one hand, and the Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (State Secretary for Security and Justice), on the other, concerning the lawfulness of decisions extending the term of detention measures adopted in their regard for the purpose of removal."


    COURT:
    ECJ
    ARTICLE:
    Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC (Returns Directive), Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Europe

Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

JUSTICIA European Rights Network