Müller v. Germany - 54963/08 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 379 (27 March 2014)

Müller v. Germany - 54963/08 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 379 (27 March 2014)

The Court found that, although the expert report contained language implying guilt, the regional court's decision was sufficiently clear in quoting the expert and did not itself state the applicant was guilty of a fresh offence. The context was risk assessment for probationary release, not a determination of criminal guilt. Therefore, there was no violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 379
Parties
Applicant: Müller; Respondent: Germany
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
no violation of Article 6 § 2
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Probationary Release, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Presumption of Innocence Probationary Release Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Müller

Applicant

Germany

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in an expert report used in probationary release proceedings violated the applicant's presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 after acquittal of a criminal charge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, although the expert report contained language implying guilt, the regional court's decision was sufficiently clear in quoting the expert and did not itself state the applicant was guilty of a fresh offence. The context was risk assessment for probationary release, not a determination of criminal guilt. Therefore, there was no violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2.

Court Disposition

no violation of Article 6 § 2