CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 100 August-September 2007 Vassilios Stavropoulos v. Greece - 35522/04 Judgment 27.9.2007 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Administrative courts’ interpretation of judgment by criminal court acquitting the applicant on the benefit of the doubt: violation   Facts : The applicant was granted the use of accommodation by the Workers’ Housing Association after stating, in accordance with the legislation in force, that he did not own any other property suitable for use as accommodation. It later emerged that the applicant was the owner of a building in the same region. The administrative board of the housing association revoked the order entitling the applicant to the accommodation in question and decided to institute proceedings against him for fraud and making an intentionally false statement concerning the condition of his property. The applicant was convicted at first instance but was acquitted on appeal of all the charges. The court of appeal considered, on the basis of the principle that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused ( in dubio pro reo) , that the applicant’s guilt had not been established. In the meantime, the applicant applied to the administrative court seeking to have the administrative board’s decision overturned. The administrative court upheld the decision and rejected the application, finding that the applicant had omitted to include the building he owned in his declaration of property and had failed to demonstrate that the omission had not been intentional. The applicant appealed. Following his acquittal he filed additional pleadings with the administrative court of appeal, requesting it to take the appeal court judgment into consideration. He argued that his acquittal in the criminal proceedings was proof that the omission had not been intentional. The administrative court judgment was upheld and the applicant’s request refused on the ground that the administrative court was not bound by the findings of the criminal courts. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the administrative court had ruled on his guilt in disregard of the judgment of the criminal court and without giving valid reasons. The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the disputed judgment on the ground that, although the administrative court of appeal was not bound by the judgment of the criminal court, it should nevertheless have taken it into consideration. The administrative court of appeal dismissed a fresh appeal by the applicant and upheld the judgment in question. It observed that the applicant had omitted to declare all his property and had failed to demonstrate that the omission had not been deliberate. Hence, the deliberate omission had, by itself, resulted in his failing to qualify for accommodation provided by the housing association. With regard to the applicant’s arguments concerning his acquittal, the administrative court of appeal held that the criminal courts had not found that no offence had been committed on account of an absence of malicious intent, but had acquitted the applicant because of doubts as to his guilt. The applicant appealed on points of law and the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on the same grounds as the administrative court of appeal. Law : Dismissal of the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies : Although he had not relied explicitly on the principle of presumption of innocence, the applicant had advanced arguments which amounted in substance to a complaint that his rights under Article 6 § 2 had been infringed. Accordingly, he had given the Supreme Administrative Court the opportunity to prevent or provide redress for the alleged violation. Applicability : Both domestic law and the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court accepted the existence of a link between administrative and criminal proceedings since, although the administrative courts were not obliged to follow the conclusions adopted by the criminal courts, they had to take them into account in arriving at their decision. Article 6 § 2 – In accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo , there should be no qualitative difference between an acquittal for lack of evidence and an acquittal resulting from a finding that the person’s innocence was beyond doubt. No distinction was made between acquittals on the basis of the reasons given by the criminal court. The operative provisions of the corresponding judgments had to be complied with by any other authority ruling directly or indirectly on the criminal liability of the person concerned. In finding that the applicant’s omission had been intentional, the administrative courts had relied explicitly and without reservations on the fact that he had been acquitted on account of doubts as to his guilt. They had expressed themselves in terms which overstepped the administrative context of the dispute and had left no doubt as to the applicant’s presumed intention not to include in his declaration all the properties owned by him. Their reasoning had therefore been incompatible with the principle of presumption of innocence. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41 – EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes