Published on 2 January 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 6405/18 Dimitris KONSTANTELLOS and GRAFODIANOMIKI DIMITRIOS KONSTANTELLOS MONOPROSOPI EPE against Greece lodged on 22 January 2018 communicated on 7 December 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns decisions of the Administrative Court of Appeal to declare the applicants’ appeals inadmissible owing to non-compliance with the requirement to pay the applicable court fees and part of the imposed fines.

Following tax controls, the applicants were imposed several fines for irregularities found in their tax records. Following the dismissal of their actions lodged with the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance, the applicants appealed. The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal declared the appeals inadmissible because the applicants did not pay, as set out in the law: i) the court fees, calculated as a 2% of the value of the dispute and ii) 50% of the imposed fines. The applicants did not appeal on points of law arguing that they were in financial difficulty and it would have been an ineffective remedy that was bound to fail, in view of the standard case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the relevant legal question and the admissibility requirements applicable to appeals on points of law. They also submit acquittal judgment nos. 15625/2014 and 72423/2014 of the Athens Criminal Court of First Instance.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were deprived of access to the Court of Appeal when it declared their appeals inadmissible because they had not paid the required sums. They further complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention of a violation of the presumption of innocence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?

2. Did the applicants exhaust all domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

Did the national legal framework at the relevant time, as interpreted and applied by national courts, provide for an exemption from the payment of (i) court fees and (ii) the 50% of the imposed fines? If so, was there an effective system in place for applying and granting such exemptions?

3. If so, has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the requirement to pay (i) the applicable court fees and (ii) 50% of the imposed fines?

4. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?