CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } Published on 23 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26173/25 Michal ČERMÁK against the Czech Republic lodged on 12 August 2025 communicated on 2 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant was convicted of aiding others to commit burglaries. The applicant’s trial followed earlier criminal proceedings against two of his alleged co ‑ conspirators, who had been convicted of several burglaries. Their convictions had become final before the applicant was charged. The presiding judge in that trial subsequently presided the first instance tribunal which convicted the applicant. That tribunal relied in part on the factual findings contained in the earlier judgments concerning the applicant’s alleged co-conspirators as to the occurrence of the burglaries and the fact that they had been perpetrated with the aid of another person. It refused some of the applicant’s evidence proposals challenging those facts. The appellate court approved those conclusions. The applicant’s constitutional appeal in which he alleged a violation of the right to a fair trial and of the principle of presumption of innocence was found manifestly ill-founded and dismissed by the Constitutional Court’s decision no. IV. ÚS 312/25 of 23 April 2025. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, among other things, on account of the courts’ reliance on factual conclusions from a trial in which he did not participate, and their refusal to grant his evidence proposals related to those facts. He also complains that he was denied an impartial tribunal because the presiding judge of the first instance tribunal had sat in the trial of his co-conspirators on whose conclusions the tribunal relied. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Having regard to the manner in which the courts established the applicant’s guilt, in particular their reliance on factual conclusions from criminal proceedings in which the applicant did not participate, and the refusal of his evidence proposals challenging those facts, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Huseyn   and   Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   35485/05   and   3 others, § 200, 26 July 2011, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2) , nos. 51111/07 and 42757/07, § 522-523, 14 January 2020)?   2. In view of the participation of the presiding judge of the first instance tribunal in the trial of the applicant’s alleged co ‑ conspirators, whose factual conclusions were relied upon by the tribunal, did the applicant have an impartial tribunal as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Meng v. Germany , no. 1128/17, § 48, 16 February 2021)?