According to this EU press release, EU strengthens right to the presumption of innocence:
On 12 February 2016, the Council adopted a directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings.
According to the directive, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law.
This document highlights the main points from the press release. The one I am interested in is:
Innocence until proven guilty: The new rules prohibit public authorities and judicial decisions from making any public references to guilt, before a person is proven guilty. There is now a common definition across all Member States of what the presumption of innocence is.
During the last years, several Romanian officials (members of the Government, members of the Parliament) complained that are pressured by media and/or opposition to resign when National Anticorruption Directorate starts investigating them (NAD deals with major corruption only).
One example is indicated in this article:
Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta rejected calls for his resignation on Friday after prosecutors named him in a criminal investigation into forgery, money-laundering, conflict of interest and tax evasion.
Similarly to other cases, the President asked the PM to step down:
President Klaus Iohannis, who defeated Ponta at the ballot box on an anti-corruption platform, called on Ponta to resign over the investigation, saying his position was untenable.
Some politicians argued that, according to the aforementioned EU directive, no politician should be asked to resign unless proved guilty.
Question: Does presumption of innocence work differently for politicians? Or it technically works the same, but they should generally resign due to other political rules?