CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44546/13 Vlad ISTRATE against Romania lodged on 4 July 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s disciplinary dismissal from the police force for drunk driving while the criminal proceedings against him for the said crime were still pending. After the closure of the criminal proceedings for lack of evidence, the applicant’s request to be reinstated was rejected by the Timişoara Court of Appeal which considered, in its judgment of 28 March 2013, that the applicant had nevertheless committed the disciplinary offence of drunk driving. Relying on Article 6 §   2 of the Convention the applicant complained of a breach of his right to be presumed innocent. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   In particular, was the Timişoara Court of Appeal bound to respect the applicant’s presumption of innocence in its judgment of 28 March 2013 (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis , Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey , no. 34388/05, 12 April 2011)?