CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2023

.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 20 February 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 43026/18 Maria MITREA against Romania lodged on 24 August 2018 communicated on 30 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. The applicant was criminally prosecuted on charges of perjury. It was imputed to her that she had made false witness statements during the examination of criminal proceedings against a third person. Eventually, the Prosecutor’s Office decided to drop the charges for humanitarian reasons and also in view of the reduced gravity of the offence imputed to her. The prosecutor in charge of the case requested a judge to confirm his decision to drop the charges, in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant opposed and requested the continuation of the proceedings in accordance with Article 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She argued that she disagreed with the text of the prosecutor’s decision which she considered to contain statements to the effect that she had committed the deeds imputed to her. The applicant expressed the intention to clear her name by obtaining an acquittal. The judge who examined the matter dismissed the applicant’s request to continue the proceedings and confirmed the prosecutor’s decision to drop charges. Moreover, the judge’s decision confirmed the prosecutor’s statements which were considered by the applicant to be incriminating in her respect. The applicant complains that the solution adopted by the Prosecutor’s Office and confirmed by the court breached her right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case ( Cleve v. Germany , no. 48144/09, 15   January 2015)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.