CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 27 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35025/20 Dávid KRÁTKY against Slovakia lodged on 7 August 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a conviction of a third person on the basis of his confession given in the context of a plea bargain arrangement of offences co-perpetrated by that person and others as an organised group, while (i) such conviction describes the applicant’s role in the offences at stake in substantially the same terms as they are described in the applicant’s own indictment for them; and (ii) in its oral delivery at a   public hearing that conviction identified the applicant by his full name. The application raises an issue under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS In view of the judgment of the Specialised Criminal Court of 8 January 2019 (case no. BB-4T/36/2018) concerning a co-perpetrator of offences of which the applicant stands indicted, including the content with which the judgment was delivered orally on the said day, was the presumption of innocence respected in relation to the applicant, as guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention?   Did the Specialised Criminal Court make it sufficiently clear that in the said judgment it was not also implicitly determining the applicant’s guilt, so as to avoid, as far as possible, giving the impression that was prejudging it (see Karaman v. Germany , no. 17103/10, §§ 67 and 70, 27 February 2014; Bauras v. Lithuania , no. 56795/13, § 54, 31 October 2017; and also the application of the principles stemming from the Convention case-law in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 September 2019, AH and Others (presumption of innocence), C-377/18, § 45)?   The Government is asked to provide the Court with, inter alia , a copy of the instrument of the plea bargain or any other elements that served as the basis for the judgment of 8 January 2019.