CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     Communicated on 21 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 76607/13 Konstantinos BIKAS against Germany lodged on 28 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE In a judgment of 20 July 2012 the Munich II Regional Court convicted the applicant, a Greek national, of four counts of sexual coercion. By a decision of the same day it had discontinued the proceedings in respect of a number of further charges of sexual coercion in view of the penalty the applicant had to expect for the four offences he was subsequently found guilty of. The court stated in its judgment that it was convinced that, in addition to the four events in August 2007 the applicant was convicted of, there had been at least fifty similar events since January 2001. It took this element into account as an aggravating factor when fixing the applicant’s sentence. The applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment and his complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court were to no avail. The latter court’s decision of 16 May 2013 was served on the applicant’s counsel on 28 May 2013. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the Regional Court, in the determination of his penalty, took into consideration as an aggravating element sexual offences which he had not been found guilty of. [A1] QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   [A1] ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE