CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 March 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42760/16 Oldřich MACHALICKÝ against the Czech Republic lodged on 18 July 2016 communicated on 2 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns mainly the alleged breach of the applicant’s right to presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2 of the Convention). The applicant complains that, when dismissing his action for damages caused by his criminal prosecution which had been discontinued as time-barred without him being found guilty, the Supreme Court held that he could not have been regarded as a person who had not committed any offence since his actions had constituted an offence. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in particular with regard to the language used by the Supreme Court in the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant (see, among other authorities, Bikas v. Germany , no.   76607/13, 25 January 2018, and Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2) , no.   23349/17, 20 October 2020) ?