Communicated on 4 December 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 53172/10 Signe Kristiina L Ä HTEENM Ä KI against Estonia lodged on 1 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Signe Kristiina Lähteenmäki , is an Estonian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Vara rural municipality. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Paabumets , a lawyer practising in Tartu.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

According to a traffic accident report submitted to an insurance company an accident had occurred on 26 January 2006 with the involvement of the applicant ’ s car. The insurance company suspected fraud and informed the police. Criminal proceedings were initiated and the applicant was charged with an insurance fraud and abetting P. to give knowingly false testimony under Article 212 § 1 and Articles 22 § 2 and 320 § 1 of the Penal Code ( Karistusseadustik ), respectively. The other accused included P., K., T. and V.

By a decision of 3 December 2008 the Tartu County Court discontinued the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant and P. on the basis of Article 202 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik ). The applicant was obliged to pay 1,178 kroons (EEK) (75 euros (EUR)) to the public revenues and perform eighty hours of community service. In case of failure to perform these obligations the court, at the request of the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, was to resume the criminal proceedings.

The County Court ’ s decision contained a summary of the charges against the applicant and P. It was further noted that the prosecutor had requested the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant and P. on the basis of Article 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the offence in question was an offence in the second degree, both the applicant and P. had been involved in it on the initiative of other persons and neither of them had prior criminal record. Their guilt was negligible and there was lack of public interest in the continuation of the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor requested the imposition on the applicant of the obligations indicated above.

It was further noted in the decision that the applicant and P. as well as their lawyers agreed to the discontinuance of the proceedings and to the imposition of the obligations requested by the prosecutor.

The part of the decision setting out the County Court ’ s position reads as follows:

“The criminal proceedings in respect of the charges against [the applicant] under Article 212 § 1 and Articles 320 § 1 – 22 § 2 of the [Penal Code] ... have to be discontinued on the basis of Article 202 §§ 1, 2 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure] as all the legal requirements have been fulfilled. It is an offence in the second degree, the guilt of the accused is negligible, no proprietary damage has been caused and there is lack of public interest in the continuation of the proceedings.

On the basis of Article 202 § 2 (1) and (2) of the [Code of Criminal Procedure] the obligations requested by the prosecutor have to be imposed to the applicant ... ”

By a judgment of 3 December 2008, in plea bargain proceedings concerning the same criminal case, the Tartu County Court convicted K., T. and V. of insurance fraud. They were sentenced to suspended prison terms.

On 4 March 2009 the applicant claimed EEK 190,282.71 (EUR 12,161) from the insurance company as an insurance indemnity related to the traffic accident that had given rise to the above criminal proceedings. The insurance company rejected the claim arguing that by the Tartu County Court ’ s judgment of 3 December 2008 it had been established that the traffic accident had been staged.

The applicant brought a civil suit against the insurance company. Her claim was dismissed by the Tartu County Court ’ s judgment of 23 December 2009. The court held as follows:

“The Tartu County Court established by a final judgment in the criminal case ... that the traffic accident that according to the [applicant ’ s] allegations had taken place on 26 January 2006 had been staged. According to the judgment ... three individuals were found guilty of having staged on 26 January 2006 at around 9 p.m. a collision of an Opel Ascona , Audi A6 and Volvo S60, allegedly driven by the [applicant]. The [applicant] has made a claim to the [insurance company] for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle by the alleged traffic accident ... . According to the claim the [applicant] had driven the car that had been involved in the accident. It has been established by the Tartu County Court ’ s decision of 3 December 2008 ... that the [applicant] had not been at the scene and that the traffic accident had been staged. Nevertheless, ... the [applicant] submitted to the [insurance company] a statement containing false information and a claim for compensation of damage caused by an alleged insurance case. The [applicant] was charged with an offence under Article 212 § 1 of the [Penal Code], that is intentionally bringing about an insured event and causing a misconception of the occurrence of an insured event with the intention to receive an insurance indemnity from the insurer. The prosecutor requested ... the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings on the basis of Article 202 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure] since it was an offence in the second degree, the guilt of the accused was negligible and there was lack of public interest in the continuation of the proceedings. The [applicant] erroneously concluded that because of the [prosecutor ’ s] request and the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings [she] had a right to the insurance indemnity. An insurance indemnity is paid by an insurer only if an insurance case has taken place. In the present case it has been established by a judgment and a decision of a court that no insurance case has taken place and that the traffic accident has been staged. Thus, the [applicant] had no grounds to claim the indemnity ... from the [insurance company]. ... In the present case, no accident has taken place.

The [applicant ’ s] understanding that because of the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings in respect of her, [on the basis of] Article 202 § 2 (1) and (2) [of the Code of Criminal Procedure], she is not guilty, is wrong. Article 202 § 1 [of the Code of Criminal Procedure] stipulates that if the object of criminal proceedings is a criminal offence in the second degree and the guilt of the person suspected or accused of the offence is negligible, and he or she has remedied or has commenced to remedy the damage caused by the criminal offence or has paid the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings, or assumed the obligation to pay such expenses, and there is no public interest in the continuation of the criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office may request discontinuation of the criminal proceedings by a court with the consent of the suspect or accused . It follows from this provision that the person ’ s guilt exists but it is negligible and he or she has commenced to remedy it or has assumed the obligation to pay the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings.”

The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia , about the breach of her presumption of innocence by the County Court. Although there was no judgment whereby she had been found guilty in connection with the traffic accident of 26 January 2006, the County Court in its judgment of 23 December 2009 had treated her as being guilty of an offence. She argued that her consent to pay the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings did not mean that she had committed the offence. By its judgment of 3 December 2008 the Tartu County Court had convicted K., T. and V. but not the applicant.

On 3 May 2010 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the County Court ’ s judgment. It held as follows:

“7. Mistaken is the [applicant ’ s] argument that the County Court had wrongly interpreted the legal nature and evidentiary value in respect of the person ’ s admitting of guilt of the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings.

The County Court has correctly found, relying on what had been established by the Tartu County Court ’ s decision and judgment of 3 December 2008, that the [applicant] took part ... in the staging of the traffic accident the aim of which was to bring about an insured event and to cause a misconception of the occurrence of an insured event with the intention to receive an insurance indemnity from the insurer.

According to Article 272 § 2 of the [Civil Code] court rulings in other cases are deemed to be documentary evidence.

...

8. ...

Discontinuance of criminal proceedings under Article 202 § 1 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure] does not prove that the suspect or the accused has not committed the act he or she is accused of. The premise of the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings according to the provision referred to is that the object of the criminal proceedings is a criminal offence in the second degree and the guilt of the person suspected or accused of the offence is negligible, and he or she has remedied or has commenced to remedy the damage caused by the criminal offence or has paid the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings, or assumed the obligation to pay such expenses, and there is no public interest in the continuation of the criminal proceedings, that is the act as such has nevertheless been committed.

The Court of Appeal finds that the fact that the applicant has committed the act consisting of bringing along the insured event and causing a misconception of the occurrence of an insured event with the intention to receive an insurance indemnity from the insurer has been established by the Tartu County Court ’ s decision of 3 December 2008. In case the [applicant] found that she had not committed such act, she should have submitted evidence to prove her argument but she has not done so. The mere words of the [applicant] that she has not committed the act referred to in the Tartu County Court ’ s decision of 3 December 2008 does not allow to conclude that the applicant has not participated in the insurance fraud aimed at receiving an insurance indemnity.

9. ...

In the present case it is established that the [applicant] as the policyholder intentionally caused the insured event and therefore the [insurance company] is exempted from the obligation to satisfy the claim.”

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court reiterating, inter alia , her complaint about a breach of the presumption of innocence.

On 22 June 2010 the Supreme Court decided not to examine the appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik ) provides as follows:

Article 202 – Discontinuation of criminal proceedings in event of lack of public interest in proceedings and in case of negligible guilt

“(1) If the object of criminal proceedings is a criminal offence in the second degree and the guilt of the person suspected or accused of the offence is negligible, and he or she has remedied or has commenced to remedy the damage caused by the criminal offence or has paid the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings, or assumed the obligation to pay such expenses, and there is no public interest in the continuation of the criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office may request discontinuation of the criminal proceedings by a court with the consent of the suspect or accused.

(2) In the event of discontinuation of criminal proceedings, the court may impose the following obligation on the suspect or accused at the request of the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office and with the consent of the suspect or the accused within the specified term:

1. to pay the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings or compensate for the damage caused by the criminal offence;

2. to pay a fixed amount into the public revenues and to be used for specific purposes in the interest of the public;

3. to perform 10 to 240 hours of community service. The provisions of Article 69 §§ 2 and 5 of the Penal Code apply to community service.

(3) The term for the performance of obligations listed in paragraph 2 of this Article shall not exceed six months.

(4) A request of the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office shall be adjudicated by a ruling of a judge sitting alone. If necessary, the prosecutor and the suspect or accused and, at the request of the suspect or accused, also the counsel shall be summoned to the judge for the adjudication of the request of the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office.

(5) If the judge does not consent to the request submitted by the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, he or she shall return the criminal matter on the basis of his or her ruling for the continuation of the proceedings.

(6) If a person with regard to whom criminal proceedings have been discontinued pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article fails to perform the obligation imposed on him or her, the court, at the request of the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, shall resume the criminal proceedings by an order. In imposition of a punishment, the part of the obligations performed by the person shall be taken into consideration.

(7) If the object of criminal proceedings is a criminal offence in the second degree for which the minimum rate of imprisonment is not prescribed as punishment or only a pecuniary punishment is prescribed as punishment by the Special Part of the Penal Code, the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office may discontinue the criminal proceedings and impose the obligations on the grounds specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article. The Public Prosecutor ’ s Office may resume discontinued criminal proceedings by an order on the grounds specified in paragraph 6 of this Article.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that she did not receive a fair civil trial and that her presumption of innocence was breached .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was there such a link between the discontinued criminal proceedings and the subsequent civil proceedings as to render Article 6 § 2 of the Convention applicable in respect of the civil proceedings (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 104, ECHR 2013)?

2. Was the applicant ’ s presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2, respected in the present case?

3. Is there any separate issue of compliance with Article 6 § 1 as regards the civil proceedings? If so, d id the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?