CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 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 9 October 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11500/23 Iosif IOSIF against Cyprus lodged on 9 March 2023 communicated on 22 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is awaiting trial on charges of attempted murder and other crimes in the Assize Court of Nicosia. When separately convicting his alleged co-perpetrators, the court named the applicant and made, as it later said, “very specific references to [his] direct and clear involvement in the crimes committed by the [co-perpetrators]”. A question may arise under Article   6 §   2 of the Convention if by doing so the court breached the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies for the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Konstas v. Greece , no. 53466/07, §§ 55-57, 24 May 2011)?   2.     If he did, has he exhausted all of them, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? Which date should be regarded as the starting point for that time-limit?   4.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case (see Karaman v.   Germany , no.   17103/10, 27   February 2014)?