CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 avril 2026

.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 11   May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no.   21643/25 Jorge VILLAMOR OLEAGA against Spain lodged on 10   July 2025 communicated on 23   April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the presumption of innocence by way of the reasoning contained in the Constitutional Court’s judgment given in amparo appeal proceedings. The applicant lived with his wife, O.V., and their three-year-old son in Vitoria. On 1   November 2020, O.V. and he had an altercation at home. Subsequently, O.V. went to a hospital where she was examined. She returned home on the same day, but then left Vitoria for A Coruña on 5 November, taking their child with her, without the applicant’s consent. That same month the applicant initiated two sets of urgent family proceedings in Vitoria seeking the return of the child. On 16   November 2020 O.V. reported the events of 1   November to the police department in A Coruña. Subsequently, the A Coruña violence-against-women judge opened an investigation but relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the courts in Vitoria, where the events had happened. O.V. sought, from the same judge in A Coruña, a protection order for violence against women. It was rejected on 1   December 2020 because she had failed to substantiate any objective risk for her or for the child. Moreover, the judge found that O.V. had instrumentalised the request for a protection order with the aim to impose her will to move to A Coruña with the child and get the full custody there. In December 2020 the Vitoria violence-against-women judge opened proceedings against the applicant to investigate the events of 1   November. In June 2021 O.V. initiated divorce proceedings before the same judge, which had jurisdiction to hear the family case due to the pending violence-against-woman proceedings. She also lodged a request for interim family measures. On 30   July 2021 the Vitoria judge decided on the interim measures. The full custody of the child was attributed to O.V. and the applicant was granted visits and contact rights. It further established that the custody should be exercised in the city of Vitoria. O.V. challenged the interim decision through an action of annulment. She complained that the best interest of the child had not been considered and that the decision of 30 July had breached her right to liberty of movement and the freedom to choose her residence by forcing her to exercise the custody of the child in Vitoria. On 23   March 2022 O.V. lodged an amparo appeal against the rejection of the action of annulment. As it appears from the judicial decisions submitted with the application form, namely the Constitutional Court’s judgment and attached dissenting opinion as well as the criminal judgment, there were subsequent developments arising from the events of the case. The first instance judgment in the main divorce proceedings was issued in January 2023. The court granted shared custody of the child to both parents, ordering again that it should be exercised in Vitoria. In addition, the applicant initiated a motion for the enforcement of the decision to exercise the shared custody in Vitoria. Moreover, the Vitoria court started criminal proceedings against O.V. for disobedience of a court order. It appears that the applicant’s child returned to Vitoria in February 2023. Eventually, the exclusive custody of the child was de facto attributed to the applicant with O.V.’s consent and the court that heard the appeal against the divorce judgment confirmed this new situation in February 2024, because O.V. had not moved to Vitoria. On 23   April 2024 a Vitoria criminal court acquitted the applicant of all charges for violence against women for the events of 1   November 2020. It found that O.V. had had spurious motives. Furthermore, she lacked credibility because she had shown a clear intention of legalising a de facto situation that she had unilaterally created by moving to A Coruña with the child to obtain full custody. It further found that she lacked objective credibility because the injuries described in the hospital report of 1   November were very mild and unremarkable, thus not compatible with the serious “beating” she had reported to the police on 16   November. The criminal judgment was upheld on appeal in September 2024. On 10   March 2025 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment in the amparo proceedings submitted by O.V. against the interim measures’ decision of 30   July 2021. It held, in favour of O.V., that the decision had breached her right to an effective judicial protection in connection with the best interest of the child. In addition, it found that the decision amounted to a breach of her liberty of movement and her freedom to choose her residence within the Spanish territory and consequently quashed it. The judgment summarised the opening of the criminal proceedings for violence against women and the family proceedings in Vitoria, including the delivery of the decision of 30   July 2021. In the law part ( fundamentos de derecho ) the Constitutional Court found that the decision of 30   July 2021 lacked a detailed reasoning, which was necessary due to the particular context of violence against women in which it had been issued. It held that O.V.’s decision to move to A Coruña had been based on her status as a victim of violence against women ( víctima de violencia machista ) and that the decision of 31   July 2021 had forced her, as an inevitable consequence, to move back to the city where the presumed aggressor ( presunto maltratador ) lived. The judgment did not mention the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which had resulted in his acquittal on 23   April 2024. The applicant complained that the lack of mentioning of his acquittal in the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10   March 2025 combined with the use of the expression “presumed aggressor” and the way that the facts had been presented in the judgment amounted to a breach of his right to presumption of innocence under Article   6 §   2 of the Convention. He further complained that the reasoning of the judgment breached his reputation and his private and family life under Article   8 of the Convention because it had disregarded the context in which the decisions of the lower courts had been issued and it had legitimatised an illegal change of residence of his child, imposed unilaterally and de facto by O.V., without the applicant’s consent or a judicial authorisation. Finally, he complained under Article   14 linked with Articles   6 § 2 and/or 8 of the Convention that the content of the Constitutional Court’s judgment amounted to a discriminatory treatment on grounds of sex in the exercise of his family rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the findings of the domestic courts in the family and the criminal proceedings, was the applicant’s presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the Constitutional Court’s amparo appeal judgment of 10   March 2025, which was delivered after he had been acquitted of the charges of violence against women (see Nealon and Hallam v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   32483/19 and   35049/19, §§   102-109, 11   June 2024 and Vekua v.   Georgia , no.   43537/22, §§   39-42, 16   December 2025)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, under Article   8 of the Convention because of the impact that the wording of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10   March 2025 may have had on his reputation or the relationship with his child? 3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the grounds of sex on account of the statements made in the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10   March 2025, contrary to Article   14 read in conjunction with Articles   6 §   2 and/or Article   8 of the Convention? 4.     The parties are requested to submit all documents concerning subsequent developments arising from the events of the case in the main family proceedings, the related enforcement proceedings and ex officio criminal proceedings for disobedience mentioned in the decisions submitted with the application form.