CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 mai 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 75 May 2005 Diamantides v. Greece (no. 2) - 71563/01 Judgment 19.5.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Court decisions reproaching applicant for committing infractions for which he had not been judged yet or acquitted of: Article 6 applicable, violation   Facts : While criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant, the charges against him and the acts he was alleged to have committed were mentioned in a television programme. Considering himself to have been defamed, the applicant lodged a complaint. Most of the acts referred to in the statements he complained of constituted the offences for which he had been prosecuted. The domestic courts which dealt with the defamation proceedings instituted by the applicant considered that the statements in issue were truthful and that there had been no defamation. They found against the applicant in decisions which intimated that he had committed the offences. However, the applicant had either been acquitted of the offences in question with final effect or the criminal proceedings concerning them were still in progress. Law : Article 6 § 2 – Applicability : The Government submitted that Article 6 § 2 was not applicable because the applicant had not been charged with an offence in the defamation proceedings complained of. However, although the statements as to his guilt had been made in judicial proceedings in which he had not been the defendant, those proceedings had taken place at the same time as and in connection with the criminal proceedings in which he had been charged. Article 6 § 2 was applicable. Presumption of innocence : In the defamation proceedings the applicant had been de facto declared guilty of particular offences either before his guilt had been established by the criminal court responsible for examining all the relevant evidence, or despite the fact that he had been acquitted with final effect by the competent criminal court. The courts which had dealt with the defamation proceedings had used extremely vague and absolute terms that left no doubt that the applicant had indeed committed criminal offences, even though he had either already been acquitted of them or still faced charges. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a specified sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes