Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20286/08

The Court notes that the administration did not claim that the applicant had committed any unlawful act and there was nothing in its decision indicating any assessment or prejudgment of the applicant's guilt related to the criminal charges brought against him (see Dubos v. France (dec.), no. 31104/96, 14 January 1998).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20286/08

The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence set out by Article 6 § 2 is relevant not only in criminal proceedings, but also in other cases where the domestic courts did not have to determine the question of guilt, its essential purpose being to prevent any domestic authority to reflect an opinion that the applicant is guilty before he/she has been proved guilty according to law (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20286/08

The Court needs therefore to assess whether the administrative decision taken by the public authority involved in any way an implication of guilt concerning the applicant or cast any doubt on the applicant's innocence, going so far as to overstep the boundaries set by Article 6 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 46, ECHR 2003-II (extracts), and also Allenet de Ribemont v. France, cited above, § 41).

Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20286/08

It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the public authority regards the accused as guilty (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62).