CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38985/21 Lyubomir Blagov MEDAROV against Bulgaria lodged on 28 July 2021 communicated on 28 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent, allegedly breached by the then Chief Public Prosecutor, his spokesperson and a prosecutor supervising the case when they commented on the investigation of a group of high-ranked State officials accused of spying for a foreign country. The impugned statements, made at a press conference organised on 19 March 2021 with the specific purpose to present the investigation, and on the next day in front of media, were allegedly unambiguous as to the fact that the group had committed criminal offences and as to the applicant’s participation. Even though the applicant’s name was not given, his official position as head of a parliamentary body dealing with classified information was revealed, which easily allowed the media to identify him. The prosecutor supervising the case stated in particular the following: “The criminal group already described has acted for a lengthy period of time. The offences it has committed are grave and intentional ... these are offences against the Republic. ... The evidence collected up to now shows categorically that the group’s activity has seriously harmed the interests of the State.” The Chief Public Prosecutor stated in front of a television channel in particular the following: “[Y]ou have to see how ugly it is what these people have been doing. ... We presented the facts in the manner in which the prosecution authorities see them and these are not only facts, there is evidence, and we did it for the reason I already gave you – so that the Bulgarian citizens get themselves a notion about how things are and who has done what. ... Nobody likes traitors”. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 that his right to be presumed innocent was breached, as he was unequivocally presented as guilty, at a moment when the criminal proceedings against him and his alleged accomplices were at their initial stage. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, seeing in particular the statements of representatives of the prosecution authorities concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant referred to above (see, among other authorities, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no. 34529/10, ECHR 2013, and Maslarova v.   Bulgaria , no. 26966/10, 29 January 2019)?