CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 octobre 2024

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 18 November 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34695/22 David RATH against the Czech Republic lodged on 20 June 2022 communicated on 28 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings on serious corruption ‑ related charges brought in May 2012 against the applicant, a well ‑ known politician, and other co-accused, which were widely covered in the media. Following a first round of the proceedings, which gave rise to an extraordinary complaint by the Minister of Justice and an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court concerning the lawfulness of interception and surveillance warrants issued in the applicant’s case and the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby, the first-instance court convicted the applicant of bribe-taking, committed in his capacity as a public official, and sentenced him to eight and a half years’ imprisonment and confiscation of money. On 26 June 2019 [1] , the appellate court substituted that conviction for a lesser offence, finding the applicant guilty, in his capacity as a public official, of an attempt to secure an advantage in a public tender in exchange of an undue financial benefit and harming the financial interests of the European Union, and sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment, financial penalty, confiscation of money and seven years’ prohibition of public-function activities. Later, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals on points of law filed by the applicant, his co-accused and the Supreme Prosecutor. A constitutional appeal by the applicant was also dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (decision   no. I. ÚS 1775/21 of 14 December 2021, served on the applicant on 21   December 2021). The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him displayed elements of a show trial. He contends that the adverse public statements and interventions made by various State officials, namely the Minister of Justice and the President (repeatedly referring to him as a thief and a convict who should sit in jail), encouraging the public to believe that there was solid evidence proving that he was guilty and pressurising the courts to convict him, compromised the principles of impartiality and independence and were incompatible with the presumption of innocence. In respect of the impartiality of the judges involved in the proceedings, the applicant also points out that the first-instance court had been fined by the Office for protection of personal data on account of having made his criminal file accessible to the media, and that he had lodged a an action for protection of his personality rights against the president of the chamber of that court. He further objects that the lay assessors sitting in the first-instance court had been elected by the council of the Central Bohemian Region which was itself a civil party in the proceedings. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 that the interception and surveillance warrants issued in his case were not sufficiently reasoned, that the principle of equality of arms was breached due to the filing by the Minister of Justice of an extraordinary complaint, that the trial was conducted in an incomplete and one-sided   manner, without proper inquiry into all relevant circumstances, and that it suffered from delays. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard, inter alia , to the fact that the first-instance court had been fined for having breached the protection of the applicant’s personal data and that the applicant had lodged an action for protection of his personality rights against the president of that court’s chamber in charge of his case, as well as to the alleged connection between the lay assessors sitting in the first ‑ instance court’s chamber and the regional entity acting as a civil party in the proceedings, were the lower courts which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example,   Daktaras v. Lithuania , no.   42095/98 , ECHR 2000 ‑ X; and Bavčar v. Slovenia , no. 17053/20, 7 September 2023)? The Government are invited to comment on the leak of the applicant’s personal data from the first-instance court, on the procedure of election and appointment of the lay assessors sitting in the applicant’s case and on their connection to the regional entity alleged to act as a civil party in the impugned proceedings.   2.     Did the statements of the then President and other public officials encourage the public to believe that the applicant was guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent courts, in breach of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention (see, for example, Butkevičius v. Lithuania , no. 48297/99 , § 50, ECHR   2002 ‑ II   (extracts); Peša v. Croatia , no.   40523/08, 8 April 2010; and Bavčar , cited above)? [1] On 21 June 2022, the appellate court adopted a new judgment in which it convicted the applicant of a continuous offence which consisted, among other acts, of the individual acts covered by the judgment of 26 June 2019 and imposed on him a concurrent sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.