KONSTAS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 11 The Court accordingly finds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in respect of the Prime Minister’s statements. 42. As regards the remarks made by the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Court notes that, among other things, he used the term “crooks” and said “you even steal from each other”. In so doing, he did not restrict himself to merely referring to the applicant’s conviction by the Assize Court’s judgment no. 2444/2007, which would have been keeping with the principle of the presumption of innocence. It should be noted in this regard that as that judgment had not yet been finalised, the Deputy Minister of Finance had made these statements without knowing the exact facts on which the Assize Court had based its verdict. In the Court’s opinion, such blunt, imprudent language was likely to influence public opinion as regards the applicant’s guilt. In particular, the word “crook” illustrated his – very negative – personal opinion of the applicant following the Assize Court’s judgment. In addition, the comment “you even steal from each other”, another implicit but clear reference to the applicant, had all the appearance of a new assessment of the facts the Court of Appeal would be examining in order to deliver the final decision in the matter. In short, the wording used by the Deputy Minister of Finance appears to have reflected his own view of the case, prejudging the future judgment of the Court of Appeal. 43. As to the wording used by the Minister of Justice, the Court observes first of all that he did not speak as bluntly as the Deputy Minister of Finance in referring to the conviction of the people involved in the case. Accordingly, his comments could not be construed as his own, negatively biased appraisal of the applicant’s case. The Minister of Justice did, however, declare that the Greek courts had “boldly and resolutely” convicted those involved in the case. That statement was likely to give the impression that the Minister of Justice was satisfied with the verdict reached in judgment no. 2444/2007 and wanted the Court of Appeal to uphold that judgment. The Court draws attention in particular to the specific political post this government minister occupied at the time. As Minister of Justice he embodied, par excellence, the political authority responsible for the organisation and the proper functioning of the courts. He should therefore have been particularly careful not to say anything that might give the impression that he wished to influence the outcome of proceedings pending before the Court of Appeal. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the words used by the Minister of Justice appeared to prejudge the decision of the Court of Appeal. 44. The Court takes note of the Government’s argument concerning the time that elapsed between the making of the offending comments and the examination of the case on appeal. According to the Government, the appeal proceedings were still pending, so the comments made could not possibly influence the Court of Appeal after such a long time. The Court considers that the compatibility of statements with the principle of the presumption of innocence is determined with regard to the time when the statements were