CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 24 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61433/21 Cristefer Simeon MARTINA against the Netherlands lodged on 17 December 2021 communicated on 7 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 17 February 2020 the Court of Appeal of The Hague acquitted the applicant of all charges relating to the extended import ( verlengde invoer ) of cocaine. Subsequently, the applicant filed a request for compensation for the time spent in pre-trial detention (Article 533 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; “CCP”) and a request for compensation for legal costs and expenses (Article   530 of the CCP). On 14 October 2021 the Court of Appeal of The Hague, in two separate decisions, dismissed these requests. The Court of Appeal held in its decision on the first request, to which it referred in its decision on the second request, that since the applicant’s acquittal had been a “technical” acquittal ( technische vrijspraak ) there were no grounds to award him compensation. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Court of Appeal voiced suspicions regarding his innocence even though he had been acquitted of all charges.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the Court of Appeal’s decisions of 14 October 2021 compatible with the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the   Convention   (see, inter alia , Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   25424/09, §§ 120-26, ECHR 2013, and Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2) , no.   23349/17, §§ 48-54, 20   October 2020)? In particular, did the Court of Appeal voice suspicions regarding the   applicant’s innocence when it found that the applicant’s acquittal had been a “technical” acquittal?