CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2017

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 May 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60677/10 Vladimir Vyacheslavovich KOROBOV against Russia lodged on 23 September 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was charged with robbery and murder. The case was investigated by investigator K. On 28/09/05 a jury issued a verdict, finding the applicant guilty. On 12/10/05 K. published in a local newspaper an article. On 18/10/05 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, sitting as a trial court, upheld the verdict and sentenced the applicant to sixteen years’ imprisonment. On 19/10/05 and 26/10/05 K. authored two follow-up articles. On 14/04/06 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of 18/10/05 in substance. So, it became final. The applicant sued the State on account of the above publications for a violation of the presumption of innocence and defamation. He argued that Article 49 of the Constitution required that a person was to be presumed innocent until a final judgment in a criminal case. On 01/03/10 the Yuzhno ‑ Uralsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region rejected his claims. On 28/05/10 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment, indicating that, as of 2010, the applicant’s guilt had been confirmed by criminal courts and thus the contents of the articles “corresponded to the reality”. The applicant also unsuccessfully sought institution of criminal proceedings against K. for criminal defamation and insult. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.1.     Bearing in mind Article 49 of the Russian Constitution and that under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention a defendant shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty “according to law”, could the applicant benefit from the presumption of innocence in October 2005 (see Konstas v. Greece , no.   53466/07, §§ 34-38, 24 May 2011, and Rywin v. Poland , nos. 6091/06 and 2 others, § 208, 18 February 2016)? If yes, was this presumption respected in the present case (see Mokhov v. Russia , no. 28245/04, §§   28 ‑ 32, 4 March 2010; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan , no. 40984/07, §§   153 and 159-62, 22 April 2010; Maksim Petrov v. Russia , no. 23185/03, §§   102 ‑ 06, 6   November 2012; Turyev v. Russia , no. 20758/04, §§ 19-22, 11   October 2016; Kolomenskiy v. Russia , no. 27297/07, § 107, 13   December 2016; and Sutyagin v. Russia (dec.), no. 30024/02, 8   July 2008)?   1.2.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, as required by its Article 13 (compare Konstas, cited above, §§ 52-56, and Colonna v.   France (dec.), no.   4213/13, 15 November 2016)?