CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 35001/24 and 8072/25 F.S. against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Fadil NOVALIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 26 November 2024 and 10 March 2025 respectively communicated on 8 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern criminal proceedings in which the applicants were found guilty of corruption offences and sentenced to six and five years’ imprisonment, respectively. At the material time, in 2020, the first applicant was head of the Federal Administration of Civil Protection and the second applicant was the Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 14 November 2024 the Constitutional Court found partly in favour of the applicants and held that the principle of the presumption of innocence had been violated in connection with statements made by several public officials pending the criminal proceedings. It further dismissed as ill-founded their remaining complaints. The applicants complain before the Court about the general fairness of the criminal proceeding against them. They both invoke Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, while the first applicant also relies on Article 6 § 3 in this regard. They further complain that the Constitutional Court had not taken into account all public statements made in relation to their criminal proceedings which violated the principle of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Lastly, the second applicant complains that he was found guilty of an act which did not constitute a crime at the time when it was committed, in breach of Article 7 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1 and 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, 18 December 2018, and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, 11 July 2017)?   2.     Can the applicants still be considered victims of a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, in view of the findings of the Constitutional Court in its decision of 14 November 2024? If so, was there a violation of this provision of the Convention?   3.     Did the act of which the second applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under the national law at the time when it was committed, as envisaged by Article   7 of the Convention (see, for example, Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, ECHR 2015, with further references)?