CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 22 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2107/15 Vesna ARSOVSKA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 30 December 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Vesna Arsovska, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Skopje. She is represented before the Court by Mr   J.   Apostolski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 June 2010 the applicant, along with M.N. and A.G., was indicted before the Skopje Court of First Instance on charges of tax evasion. The charge stated that as a manager of the V. company she had in 2004 accepted and processed false invoices issued by other companies managed by the co-accused, thereby avoiding the payment of a total 6,543,824 Macedonian denars (MKD, around 105,000 euros (EUR)) in tax to the State. The prosecution recalculated the amount during the proceedings and set the total amount of unpaid tax at MKD 6,020,383. The Skopje Court of First Instance found the applicant and M.N. guilty on 24 January 2014. She was given a one-year suspended prison sentence while M.N. was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. In addition, they were each fined MKD 60,000 (around EUR 1,000). The charges against A.G. were dropped. The court also ordered the confiscation of 6,020,383 MKD from the applicant and M.N. The applicant lodged an appeal on 18 March 2014, arguing that prosecution for the crimes had become time-barred. M.N. also lodged an appeal. The Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the two appeals on 10 June 2014, dismissing the charges against the applicant on the grounds that prosecution had become time-barred. However, the confiscation order was upheld in full. The latter decision was based on Article 97 (3) of the Criminal Code. The relevant part of the judgment reads: “As the court has established in the instant case that prosecution has become time-barred, which is a legal obstacle to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the perpetrators ( сторителите ), it has decided, by applying paragraph 3 of Article 97 of the Criminal Code, to jointly ( солидарно ) confiscate the proceeds of the crime – the tax which was evaded of MKD 6,020,383.00 – from the accused Vesna Arsovska and M.N. ...” The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 July 2014. On 19 August 2014 she lodged a request for the protection of legality with the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Finding that there were no reasons to use that remedy, the Office of the Public Prosecutor dismissed the request on 22 October 2014. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the confiscation order, in the absence of a final judgment establishing her guilt, referred to her as a perpetrator and the amounts subject to confiscation as the “proceeds of crime” and “tax which was evaded”, in violation of her right to be presumed innocent. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case in connection with the adoption of the confiscation order following the discontinuation of the case against the applicant?