CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 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 27 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15526/24 Carlos Iván LOPEZ LOPEZ against Spain lodged on 22 May 2024 communicated on 8 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by the national courts of a claim for damages for defamation arising from statements made at a press conference by a police officer during an ongoing criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of fraud in the field of trade in medicines. During the press conference in 2015, the officer of the Madrid judicial police unit displayed a diagram revealing the applicant’s image and full name and stating that he was one of the leaders of a criminal group and provided details concerning the group’s leadership activities. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued in 2017 by an investigating judge. The applicant’s subsequent civil claim for damages resulting from a breach of his right to honour, in which he referred, inter alia , to the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, was dismissed by the domestic courts, including on 12 May 2023 by the Supreme Court. His amparo appeal was declared inadmissible on 14 February 2024. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the domestic courts, while basing their decision to dismiss his defamation claim on the conflict between defamation (Article 8 of the Convention) and freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention), failed to consider that the public statements made by the police officer infringed on his right to be presumed innocent. Without referring to Article 8, he complains that the statements of the officer, relayed by various media, tarnished his reputation, and that by dismissing his defamation claim the domestic courts failed to protect his honour and reputation and to give due weight to his presumption of innocence argument. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, given the public statements made at the press conference of 9 January 2015 by a police officer during an ongoing criminal investigation against the applicant? If yes, has it been remedied in the defamation proceedings brought by the applicant (see   Allenet de Ribemont v.   France , 10 February 1995, §§ 25-41, Series A no.   308; Y.B. and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   48173/99 and 48319/99, §§   43-50, 28   October 2004; and Lizaso Azconobieta v. Spain , no. 28834/08, §§   38-44, 28 June 2011)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, including his reputation, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the nature and scope of the police officer’s statements, the information which was made public during the criminal investigation against the applicant and its context?   3.     Did the authorities, including the domestic courts, strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the authorities’ right to inform the public of the pre-trial investigation under Article 10 of the Convention and, on the other, the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, including his reputation, under Article 8 of the Convention, in accordance with the criteria established by the Court´s case law? Did the domestic courts give an adequate response to the applicant’s arguments concerning, in particular, the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence on account of allegedly prejudicial statements made by a public official (see Narbutas v. Lithuania , no. 14139/21, §§   264-265, 19   December 2023, and Jishkariani v.   Georgia , no. 18925/09, §§   41-63, 20   September 2018)?