CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 octobre 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 13 November 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 55544/19 Georgios KALOS against Greece lodged on 8 October 2019 communicated on 25 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By act no. 11 of 18 January 2011 of the tax service a fine of EUR 30,585.44 was imposed on the applicant for having issued a false invoice. By judgment no.   10316/2012 of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court of First Instance the applicant was acquitted in criminal proceedings for the issuance of four false invoices including the aforementioned invoice. The applicant lodged a recourse ( προσφυγή ) against the fine for the issuance of the false invoice. He invoked the acquittal judgment in his submissions after the hearing ( υπόμνημα ). By judgment no. 5121/2015 of the Thessaloniki Administrative Court of First Instance his recourse was dismissed. The applicant appealed and relied on the criminal acquittal judgment requesting that it should be considered by the administrative court. The Thessaloniki Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal by judgment no. 476/2019. As regards the acquittal judgment, it held that it did not transpire from the extract of the criminal judgment adduced by the applicant what evidence had been taken into account and the reasoning on which the acquittal had been based. The acquittal judgment did not thus constitute sufficient proof either that the applicant had not issued the invoice or that the invoice and the transaction were real. The appellate court ruled that the applicant had committed the infringement and confirmed the judgment issued at first instance. The applicant argues that when a person is acquitted at first instance, it is standard practice for the criminal courts to issue an extract of the acquittal judgment which does not include any details of the proceedings. However, this does not negate his acquittal which was not based on the benefit of the doubt. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention he complains that the judgment of the appellate court violated his right to be presumed innocent, following his acquittal by the criminal courts on the same facts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a possibility for the applicant or the administrative court to receive the details of the acquittal in criminal proceedings?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?