CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 31 January 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38744/21 Anthousa ROUSOUNIDOU against Cyprus lodged on 29 July 2021 communicated on 13 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was acquitted of criminal charges in a summary trial (criminal case no. 7279/17). Her acquittal was upheld on appeal (no. 38/20). Both courts refused to make in the applicant’s favour, and against the Attorney General, an order regarding the costs of the case. Applying previous case-law, the domestic courts held that section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap. 155) did not enable an order to be made for the payment out of public revenue of the costs to a person who was acquitted in a summary trial. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial in general, and her right of access to court was hindered as a result of the domestic courts’ inability to grant her costs despite her acquittal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present case under its civil or criminal head (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 121, 6 November 2018; and Topolovčan v. Croatia (dec.), no.   67405/10, § 19, 11 December 2012)? 2.     Did the domestic courts’ inability to grant costs to the applicant, despite her acquittal, breach the applicant’s rights protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in any way (see, inter alia, mutatis mutandis, Stankov v.   Bulgaria , no.   68490/01, §§ 54-55 and 67, 12 July 2007)?