CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 17 June 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 58669/19 Dionysia ACHTYPI against Greece lodged on 5 November 2019 communicated on 28 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegedly incriminating statements made about the applicant in criminal proceedings conducted against third parties. In 2013 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, together with two other co-accused persons, on charges of fraud and forgery. At a later stage, it was concluded that the charges against the applicant had become time-barred. Therefore, the Three-Member Athens Court of Appeal, by its judgment no. 2634/2019 decided that the proceedings be separated and referred this part of the case to the Prosecutor for further action. On these grounds, prosecution was discontinued as regards the applicant. The proceedings, however, continued as regards one of the co-accused, C.P. By its same judgment no. 2634/2019, the Three-Member Athens Court of Appeal found C.P. guilty as instigator to the offence of fraud allegedly committed by the applicant as an author. In this context, the domestic court’s reasoning on the establishment of C.P.’s guilt contained reference to the acts of fraud allegedly committed by the applicant and to her intent ( ‘... It was proved that the first accused by drawing up on 12.05.2011 the new O.P.S. form, taking into account the above working days allegedly worked by V.M. and issuing the relevant decisions for the attribution of pension rights according to the working days referred to in the amended O.P.S. form, which she had drawn up herself, and whose data do not correspond to the real ones, in substance caused damage to IKA-ETAM’s property ... Therefore, Dionysia Achtypi’s intention was to allow V.M. to benefit from higher pension rights ...’ ). Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that these statements contained in judgment no. 2634/2019 with respect to her alleged involvement in the offence disregarded the principle of presumption of innocence.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? Did the statements contained in judgment no. 2634/2019 of the Three-Member Athens Court of Appeal as regards the applicant’s alleged acts and intention go beyond an establishment of the facts of the case necessary for the assessment of the guilt of third persons (see, in particular, Karaman v. Germany , no. 17103/10, §§ 63-64, 27   February 2014, Bauras v. Lithuania , no. 56795/13, §§ 52-55, 31 October 2017, Mucha v. Slovakia , no. 63703/19, § 57-62, 25 November 2021)?