CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2021

.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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 3 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 75723/17 Georgios KONNARIS against Cyprus lodged on 16 October 2017 communicated on 16 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention following his acquittal in criminal case no. 27214/12; a right which the applicant claims has been breached as a result of comments made by a judge in separate subsequent criminal proceedings (no. 285/17) concerning third persons. More specifically, in 2009 the applicant, a lawyer, acted as defence counsel for E.H. in a hit and run case. After E.H’s conviction, she and her parents (H.H. and N.H.) fled to Greece. In 2012, in the absence of H.H. and N.H., criminal proceedings (no.   27214/12) were instigated against the applicant only, for conspiring with H.H, N.H. and a person who had acted as a witness for the defence (G.V.) to commit, inter alia , subordination of perjury, and uttering false documents. On 17 April 2015 the applicant was acquitted of all charges. In 2017 the Cypriot authorities instigated criminal proceedings (no.   285/17) against H.H. and N.H. They were found guilty of, inter alia , conspiracy, subordination of perjury, inducing a witness to give false evidence and uttering false documents. In its judgment, the trial judge made certain comments with regards to the applicant’s involvement. The applicant complains that the trial judge’s comments in case no.   285/17 constituted a finding of guilt against him in breach of his right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in particular given the statements made by the trial judge in case no. 285/17?