CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2025

.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 10 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 48092/19 Dimitrios SRATEH against Greece lodged on 2 September 2019 communicated on 21 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent, allegedly breached by the non-annulment of the imposition of unpaid custom duties and taxes by the administrative courts following his acquittal for smuggling. Administrative fines for smuggling and the corresponding unpaid customs duties and taxes were imposed on the applicant as a partner of a silent partnership ( αφανής εταιρεία ) which controlled and managed a limited liability company (Ε.Π.Ε.). The applicant was also charged in criminal proceedings with instigation to smuggling. He was acquitted by a final judgment of a criminal court, which expressly stated that his participation in the partnership was limited to providing funds, having no further involvement. After his acquittal, the applicant appealed against the administrative judgment. The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the Komotini Administrative Court of Appeal which, by its judgment no. 222/2019, annulled the administrative fines referring to the ne bis in idem principle. It held, however, that the criminal decision acquitting the applicant did not preclude it from making its own assessment of the facts regarding the imposition of the customs duties and taxes. It found that the applicant had actively participated in the management and decision making of the partnership which controlled and managed the limited company, despite the findings of the criminal judgment which had acquitted the applicant in view of his limited participation. It thus upheld the imposition of the customs duties and taxes against him. The applicant complains that the non-annulment of the unpaid customs duties and taxes is in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case (see Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, §§ 168-169, 11 June 2024; Urat v. Turkey , nos. 53561/09 and 13952/11, §§ 51-52, 58-59, 27   November 2018; and Kapetanios and Others v. Greece , nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, §§ 82-88, 30 April 2015)? In particular, having regard to the fact that the applicant had been acquitted of the criminal offence, has the reasoning of Komotini Administrative Court of Appeal in judgment no.   222/2019 been in line with the guarantees of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?