CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 October 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 68556/13 Reiner KREBS against Germany lodged on 15 October 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention about a breach of the presumption of innocence by statements of the Weiden Regional Court in its judgment of 21 June 2011. The court refused to suspend the applicant’s term of ten months’ imprisonment imposed for several counts of fraud, basing its decision principally on the finding that the applicant had committed further offences of fraud in the meantime. At the time of the Regional Court’s judgment, which was confirmed on appeal, the criminal proceedings concerning the new offences of fraud were pending at the investigation stage. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   Did the Weiden Regional Court comply with that provision having regard to the statements it had made in the grounds of the judgment of 21   June 2011 in which it refused to suspend the applicant’s sentence after his conviction on several counts of fraud by the first-instance court on 9   August 2010 (see, in particular, pp. 11 et seq. of the Regional Court’s judgment)?   In particular, was it in compliance with that provision that, when refusing to suspend his sentence, the court found, inter alia , that “it had no doubt that the accused committed further offences of fraud after his conviction by the first-instance court on 9 August 2010” and that this “followed from the credible witness testimony given by Mr P ..., who conducted further criminal investigations against the accused” (see p. 11 of the Regional Court’s judgment) and also that the applicant “had reoffended ... despite the fact that the hearing before the appeal court was forthcoming” (see p. 14 of the Regional Court’s judgment)?   2.     What were the requirements under domestic law which had to be met in order for the Weiden Regional Court to be authorised to take into account the further alleged offences of fraud when refusing to suspend the applicant’s sentence? How are these requirements reconciled with the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the domestic courts’ case-law?   3.     When were the new criminal proceedings for the further offences of fraud initiated against the applicant, when did they end and what was the outcome of these proceedings?   REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS The Government is also requested, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit to the Court, within sixteen weeks from the communication of part of the present application, the following documents (in copy):   –     the submissions to the Federal Constitutional Court by all parties to whom the applicant’s constitutional complaint dated 13 February 2012 (file   no. 2 BvR 333/12) was communicated;   –     the correspondence of the Federal Constitutional Court with the parties concerning the applicant’s said constitutional complaint.