CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2024

.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 5 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 46737/20 Charalambos KARAKASIDIS against Greece lodged on 12 October 2020 communicated on 17 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was convicted for handling stolen goods and sentenced to 15 months of imprisonment. Judgment no.   339/2018 of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal found, in particular, that in July 2011 he had accepted approximately thirty pieces of jewellery and numerous gemstones, while being aware that they were products of theft. The court noted that the jewellery had been found in a box in his car, following a random police check, and dismissed his submission that they belonged to his wife. It further held that the fact that he had stored them in his car supported the finding that their origin was illegal. Following his appeal on points of law, the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 1055/2019 ruled that the impugned judgment clearly established the facts from which it followed that the accused had committed the offence, as the goods in his possession were the result of theft and he had accepted them knowing that. The appellate court did not need additional factual elements, as the offence was also confirmed by the finding that the jewellery had been stored in his car and were not owned by his wife as he had alleged. It dismissed his appeal on points of law. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was based exclusively on the fact that the jewellery was found in a box in his car, disregarding his allegation that he had kept them there because of fear of burglary due to a relevant recent incident at his house. It was not established who had stolen the objects in question and from whom. The courts failed to give reasons to support the finding that they were the product of theft and that he was aware of their illegal origin. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Was there a violation of the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by Article   6 §   2? In particular, did the national courts provide sufficient reasoning for their decisions and observe the basic requirement of criminal justice that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (see, among others, Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017   ; Lavents v. Latvia , no. 58442/00, § 125, 28 November 2002; Ajdarić v.   Croatia , no. 20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011; Poletan and Azirovik v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 26711/07 and 2 others, §§   63-64, 12 May 2016; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no. 13185/07, §§   54- ‑ 59, 8 November 2018)? Was the finding of the jewellery in his car the only evidence on which the applicant’s conviction rested?