CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2017

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22715/15 Goran BOŽINOSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 4 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns compensation proceedings regarding the publication by the press of the applicant’s personal details (his initials, his age, his hometown and his photograph with a black strip over his eyes) in relation to his arrest on suspicion of robbery. The relevant articles referred to information gathered in the course of the investigation against him and indicated that the applicant had committed the robbery. The investigation was eventually discontinued for lack of evidence. Although the Ohrid Court of First Instance granted, in part, the applicant’s compensation claim against the Ministry of the Interior, finding that the police authorities had released the information to the press at the early stages of the investigation, the Bitola Court of Appeal overturned that judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that under the relevant domestic law the applicant was not entitled to claim compensation from the Ministry and that there was no evidence that the police had released the information to the press. That court further held that the applicant was entitled to claim compensation from the media that published the articles. The Supreme Court upheld the second-instance judgment.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, with regard to the publishing of the information about the applicant and his photograph in the press (see Y.B.   and Others v. Turkey , nos. 48173/99 and 48319/99, §§ 43-51, 28   October 2004)?   2.     Given the manner of publication of the applicant’s personal details and the circumstances of the investigation against him in the media, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Sciacca v. Italy , no. 50774/99, §§ 22-31, ECHR 2005 ‑ I)?