CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 15 December 2025   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 42953/21 and 70/22 Konstantinos KYROU against Greece and Theofanis GIAHOS against Greece lodged on 23 August 2021 and 15 December 2021 respectively communicated on 27 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the failure of the Court of Auditors to take into account the criminal acquittals of the applicants. In application no. 42953/21, the Court of Auditors, by judgment no.   3481/2012, found that the applicant, who was a police officer responsible for managing funds in his precinct, was liable for the fiscal deficit incurred and ordered him to pay the amount. The applicant appealed on points of law. In parallel, the five-member Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, by final judgment no. 1453a/2018 of 8 June 2018, acquitted the applicant of embezzlement of public funds and other related offences. It found that the alleged conduct was attributed to another individual who had issued false invoices, and it was not proven that the applicant had embezzled funds. The applicant submitted the acquittal judgment before the Plenary of the Court of Auditors where his appeal on points of law was pending. The latter, by judgment no. 2118/2020 (served on 26 February 2021), dismissed the appeal on points of law holding that the ground relating to his acquittal had been raised in an inadmissible manner, as new evidence could not be considered at this stage, and in any event, the acquittal would not have affected its ruling. Additionally, an applicant’s separate action before the Court of Auditors seeking reimbursement of an amount already paid to the State was dismissed by judgment no. 287/2021 of the Plenary (served on 13 May 2021), based on the findings of judgement no. 2118/2020 of the same court. In application no. 70/22 the applicant was accused of submitting inaccurate declarations of assets ( «πόθεν έσχες» ) for the years 2006-2013. The three-member Athens Criminal Court of First Instance, by judgment no.   9118/2015, which by 15 April 2015 had become final, acquitted the applicant for years 2010-2013. It held that he had no intention to conceal assets, that he had been misinformed and that the amount of his savings was proportionate to his expenses. In the subsequent public financial liability proceedings for unlawful enrichment, initiated against him due to the inaccurate declarations, the Court of Auditors, by judgment no. 1799/2017 held that the acquittal was not binding, as the criminal court adjudicated on a different issue, and it was not proven that the criminal judgment had become final. It ordered him to pay a sum corresponding to the amount of his unlawful enrichment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment. The Plenary of the Court of Auditors, by judgment no. 348/2021 (served on 25 June 2021), found that the ground relating to his acquittal had been raised in an inadmissible manner, as the applicant had claimed for the first time that the criminal judgment had become final, and dismissed the appeal on points of law. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, both applicants complain of a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence due to the Court of Auditors’ refusal to consider their criminal acquittals. They further complain of a violation of their right to property, as they have been unlawfully required to pay certain amounts (and - in application no. 42953/21 – had not been reimbursed such sums) despite their acquittal.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present cases (see, for instance, Nealon and   Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, §§   168 ‑ 169, 11 June 2024; Kapetanios and Others v. Greece , nos. 3453/12 and 2   others, §§ 82-88, 30 April 2015; and Vassilios Stavropoulos v. Greece , no.   35522/04, §§ 29-41, 27 September 2007)? The parties are invited to answer this question also taking into account judgment no. 523/2021 of the Plenary of the Court of Auditors.