CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 30 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31357/12 Istvan REPACZKI against Germany lodged on 24 May 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the Dresden Court of Appeal’s decision of 19   July 2011 not to order the Treasury to reimburse the applicant his lawyers’ costs after quashing the judgment of the Leipzig Regional Court convicting him of aiding and abetting a dangerous assault and after discontinuing the criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal stated that the sole reason for the applicant not being convicted was that there was a bar to the proceedings in view of the fact that the applicant had been acquitted in 2008, by a final judgment, of what was, procedurally, the same offence. Were the proceedings not barred by the prohibition to be prosecuted again for the same offence ( Strafklageverbrauch ), the applicant, having regard to the findings in the Leipzig Regional Court’s judgment which had been made without erring in law, could have been convicted of aiding and abetting assault. On 12 December 2011 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The applicant complains that the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for refusing to order the reimbursement of his lawyers’ costs breached the presumption of innocence under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention. [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