CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 18 December 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 65496/16 Tomáš MACEK against the Czech Republic lodged on 4 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns: 1.     alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention), to be presumed innocent until proved guilty (Article 6 § 2 of the Convention) and to respect for his private life (Article 8 of the Convention) on account of statement made by the court in the course of inheritance proceedings that the applicant is guilty of a crime for which he was never tried by a criminal tribunal and 2.     alleged subsequent violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention) as pursuant the declaration of his guilt, he was found to be an ineligible heir of his late father’s estate. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the case-law of the Court, does the present case fall within the scope of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see notably Allen v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 94-100, ECHR 2013; Eshonkulov v. Russia , no. 68900/13, § 74-76, 15 January 2015; Vanjak v.   Croatia, no. 29889/04, § 41, 14 January 2010; Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no.   4479/03, § 44, 18 January 2011)? If so, was the applicant’s right to the presumption of his innocence respected?   2.     In view of all the circumstances, were the inheritance proceedings in the present case fair as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, namely with regard to the right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms?   3.     Have the declaration of the guilt of the applicant in the course of the inheritance proceedings amounted to an interference with the applicant’s private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? If so, has such interference been “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of one of the aims permitted under paragraph 2 of that Article? In view of all the circumstances, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life that encompasses a right to protection of the reputation (see Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no.   4479/03, § 53-63, 18 January 2011)?   4.     Has the prospective inheritance of the applicant been in his possession, within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02 , § 63, ECHR 2010; Mazurek v. France , no.   34406/97, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2000 ‑ II; Fabris v. France [GC], no.   16574/08, § 54-55, ECHR 2013 (extracts))? If so, were his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 respected?