CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 8 September 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 60392/08 Hamit SEVEN against Turkey lodged on 24 November 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent in respect of the dismissal proceedings where the domestic authorities held that the applicant had engaged in “sexual intercourse with a certain S.K. without her consent and abused his powers as a police officer” despite criminal proceedings against him on the charges of rape were pending. The applicant also complains that the administrative courts’ refusal to annul his dismissal once he was acquitted of the charges of rape and sexual assault in the criminal proceedings contravened his right to a fair trial. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   2.     In particular, did the wording employed in the dismissal proceedings, i.e. the formulation that applicant had intercourse without the consent of S.K., amount to a declaration of the applicant’s guilt while the criminal proceedings against him on the charges of rape were pending? Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the applicant was acquitted of rape charges on 21   September 2005, did the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court that refused to annul the dismissal decision without providing further reasoning cast doubt on the correctness of his acquittal (see, mutadis mutandis , Vanjak v. Croatia , no. 29889/04, 14 January 2010; Teodor v. Romania , no. 46878/06, 4 June 2013)?