Published on 16 October 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44368/18 Thomaïs ASLANOGLOU against Greece lodged on 11 September 2018 communicated on 27 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant for the non-payment of a company’s debts of which she had been the President at the time the impugned debts were created. In particular, the applicant had been the President of a public limited liability company during the period from 1982 to 1999. She then left the company which continued to exist. In 2011, the tax authorities certified debts of the company for the financial year 1994 and charged the applicant, as President of the company at the time, with the criminal offence of failure to pay debts to the State. The applicant was irrevocably convicted to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Before the domestic courts, the applicant pleaded that according to Article 25 § 3 of Law no. 1882/1990, as it stood at the time, the President of a company was liable for the debts created during their mandate but certified after their departure from the company, only if the company had been later dissolved. It was only after the modification of the law introduced by Article 23 § 1 of Law no. 2523/1997 that the responsibility of the President of the company was introduced irrespective of whether the company was later dissolved or not. Therefore, her conviction was not based on the law. The applicant’s arguments were irrevocably dismissed by decision no. 1456/2017 of the Court of Cassation. The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that she was convicted for acts which did not constitute a criminal offence under domestic law at the time of their commission.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the act (or omission) of which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed for the purpose of Article 7 of the Convention? When was that offence considered to have been committed? Could the applicant foresee, if need be with appropriate legal advice, on the basis of the domestic law and the domestic courts’ interpretation of it that she could be convicted due to debts created during her time as President of the company after her departure on the basis of Law no. 1882/1990, as it stood at the time? Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicant was convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements as have been set out in the Court’s case-law under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 99, 17 September 2009)?