CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 5 December 2020 Published on 21 December 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 63703/19 Pavel MUCHA against Slovakia lodged on 2 December 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of offences with an   organised-crime background by a tribunal that previously convicted his accomplices on the basis of their confessions given in the context of plea ‑ bargain arrangements, while such convictions described the applicant’s role in the offences at stake in substantially the same terms as in his own subsequent conviction. It raises issues under Article 6 §§ 1 (impartiality) and 2 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS 1.     In the determination of the criminal charges against him, did the applicant have a hearing by an impartial tribunal, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   In view of the fact that the bench trying the applicant previously convicted the co-perpetrators and of the wording and content of the judgments it gave on 19 December 2012 (case no. PK 1T 36/12) and 7   March 2013 (cases nos. PK 1T 2/13 and PK 1T 4/13) in their respect, was the trial court dealing with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy , 7   August 1996, § 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑III; Rojas Morales v. Italy , no. 39676/98, § 33, 16 November 2000; and, a contrario , Schwarzenberger v. Germany , no. 75737/01, §§ 43-5, 10 August 2006)?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   In particular, in its judgments concerning the co-perpetrators, did the court make it sufficiently clear that it was not also implicitly determining the applicant’s guilt, so as to avoid, as far as possible, giving the impression that was prejudging it (see Karaman v. Germany , no. 17103/10, §§ 67 and 70, 27 February 2014; Bauras v. Lithuania , no. 56795/13, § 54, 31 October 2017; and also the application of the principles stemming from the Convention case-law in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 September 2019, AH and Others (presumption of innocence) , C-377/18, § 45)?   The Government is asked to provide the Court with, inter alia , copies of the instruments of the plea bargains or any other elements that served as the basis for the judgments of 19 December 2012 and 7 March 2013.