1.

Does the right to respect for the presumption of innocence pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive [(EU)] 2016/343 (2) [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, and also the principle of proportionality and the rights of the defence pursuant to Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a court of higher instance, in appeal proceedings brought by a prosecutor against an order handed down by a court of first instance discontinuing criminal proceedings, from setting out in the grounds of its ruling, before the case has been decided on the merits and without the court taking evidence in the case, the following findings of fact and law:

‘The false information of a purely intimate nature, which the accused shared with a large number of followers via his post, is – due to its content – liable to cause serious damage to the aggrieved person’s romantic, family and social relations, and to undermine trust in her […]. The evidence taken during the pre-trial investigation and on which the okresný súd (District Court, Slovakia) also based its findings shows beyond doubt that the accused has been using lies about her and attacking her, which has placed her in a very unpleasant situation in her relations with her family and acquaintances. The intimate relationship between her and SB is a figment of the accused’s imagination, and the events to which the accused referred in his statements never took place […]. As regards the determination of which of the published statements were false, they are undoubtedly statements whose veracity was ascertained in the pre-trial investigation based on the evidence taken, and which concerned the intimate relationship between the aggrieved person and the witness SB, and the sexual practices which the accused clearly described in his post.’?

2.

Is the answer to the first question influenced by the fact that neither national legislation nor national practice require the court of higher instance to carry out an assessment of the factual and legal issues in the grounds for the order setting aside the ruling, and that those grounds could be limited to a simple statement that the ruling handed down by the lower court was flawed because the court of first instance is required to take evidence at the main hearing and to rule accordingly?

3.

Is the answer to the first question influenced by the fact that the court of higher instance, when deciding on the prosecutor’s appeal, ruled solely on the basis of the evidence taken during the pre-trial investigation, which had not yet been heard before a court of first instance?

4.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: should the following actions and rulings be regarded as appropriate measures for ensuring respect for the presumption of innocence within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2016/343 of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings?