Published on 14 March 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 28616/17 Nikolaos AGGLOUPAS against Greece lodged on 7 April 2017 communicated on 25 February 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the non-annulment of the imposition of unpaid custom duties and taxes following an application for reopening of the procedure before the administrative courts following the judgment Kapetanios and others v. Greece (nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, 30 April 2015).

Administrative fines for smuggling of two luxury cars were imposed on the applicant while he was also charged with unpaid customs duties and taxes for the importation and circulation in Greece of one of the two cars. The applicant had been previously acquitted in criminal proceedings of the offence of contraband. In Kapetanios and others v. Greece the Court found inter alia a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Following the Court’s judgment, the applicant applied for the reopening of the procedure before the Supreme Administrative Court. The latter in its judgment no. 1992/2016 introduced seven conditions under which the reopening procedure shall be accepted. It annulled the administrative fines for smuggling but held that the violations found by the Court in Kapetanios concerned only the imposition of the smuggling fines and not the unpaid customs duties and taxes.

The applicant complains that the non-annulment of the unpaid customs duties and taxes is in breach of Article 6 § 2 and the presumption of innocence established by his acquittal in the criminal proceedings for the offence of contraband.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, was the Supreme Administrative Court in judgment no. 1992/2016 bound to respect the presumption of innocence in respect of the customs duties and taxes imposed on the applicant? Why is the finding of the same section of the Supreme Administrative Court different in judgment no. 951/2018?