CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2025

.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 } Published on 7 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28005/24 S.B. against Germany lodged on 27 September 2024 communicated on 20 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns compliance with the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant co-founded and worked in an educational institution associated with the boy scout movement. He regularly received groups of children and individual children for overnight stays at the premises of the institution. On 7 March 2019 the Diez District Court convicted the applicant of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of children and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. On 8 January 2024 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. In its judgment, the court noted that the hearing of witnesses had shown that the applicant had performed sexual acts and committed assaults and sexual assaults (“ sexuelle Übergriffe ”) against the alleged victim. There was, however, insufficient evidence to prove that the acts had taken place before the alleged victim had turned 14 years of age, this being one of the elements of the offence of aggravated sexual assault. The court further noted that as far as the facts established were to be qualified as sexual abuse of persons in one’s charge and of juveniles, those offences had become time-barred. The judgment subsequently referred to “all” or “further offences committed” (“ sämtliche verwirklichte Taten ” or “ weitere verwirklichte Straftatbestände ”), again noting that their prosecution had become time ‑ barred so that the applicant could not be held accountable for them. On 12 August 2024 the Federal Constitutional Court decided not to accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint for adjudication, without giving reasons. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal disregarded the presumption of innocence. He argued that the court’s reasoning amounted to a finding of guilt even though it had quashed the District Court’s judgment and had acquitted him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the statements contained in the judgment of the Court of Appeal regarding the criminal liability for sexual abuse of persons in one’s charge and/or of juveniles (e.g.   pp. 9 et seq. of the judgment) and regarding the criminal liability for sexual abuse of children (e.g. pp. 3-6 and 8 et seq.)?   2.     In particular, having regard to the principles established by the Court notably in its judgments in the cases of Cleve v. Germany (no. 48144/09, §§   32-42 and 52-64, 15 January 2015) and Peltereau-Villeneuve v.   Switzerland (no. 60101/09, §§ 30-39, 28 October 2014),   (a)     Do the impugned statements amount to a finding of guilt in the absence of a final conviction rather than to a mere description of a (remaining) state of suspicion?   (b)     To what extent were the impugned statements necessary to acquit the applicant from the criminal charges brought against him, having also regard to the fact that the Court of Appeal gave an abbreviated reasoning pursuant to Article 267 § 5, second sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure?