CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 septembre 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 232 August-September 2019 Januškevičienė v. Lithuania - 69717/14 Judgment 3.9.2019 [Section IV] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Effective civil remedy in domestic law for violation of presumption of innocence: inadmissible Facts – The applicant complained that, in criminal proceedings against third parties, the domestic courts had adopted judgments which unambiguously stated that she had committed criminal offences as part of an organised group, despite the fact that she had not been found guilty of those offences by any court. Law – Article 6 § 2: The Government submitted that, under domestic law, it had been open to the applicant to lodge a civil claim and obtain monetary compensation for the breach of her honour and dignity. A remedy under civil law could, in principle, be considered effective against alleged violations of the presumption of innocence. The Government had provided examples of domestic case-law in which individuals had claimed that statements presenting them as guilty of a criminal offence had breached their honour and dignity. One of those individuals had been successful in receiving monetary compensation. The civil remedy indicated by the Government did not appear, on its face, to be ineffective with regard to the applicant’s complaint about her right to be presumed innocent and there were no exceptional circumstances which would have absolved the applicant from the obligation to avail herself of that remedy. In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). The Court also held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 13 as the applicant had had an effective remedy under civil law. (See also Marchiani v. France (dec.), 30392/03, 27 May 2008, Information Note 108 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes