Published on 20 November 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 744/19 Aristidis FLOROS against Greece lodged on 14 December 2018 communicated on 2 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

By order no. 365/2014 of the Athens Court of Appeal criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and he was referred to trial for embezzlement to the detriment of the State, smuggling and laundering the proceeds of organised crime as part of an organised criminal group. By judgments nos. 534/2017, 599/2017 and 115/2017 of the Criminal Court of Appeal the applicant was convicted for those offences. Following his appeal against these judgments a hearing was set for 17 December 2018.

In 2012 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant also for the offence of fraud to the detriment of the State and laundering the proceeds of organised crime. The prosecutor proposed that the applicant be referred to the Athens Court of Appeal for the offence of embezzlement instead of fraud and to declare inadmissible the proceedings relating to the laundering the proceeds of organised crime in view of judgment no. 534/2017. This criminal case was pending before the Indictment Division of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal at the time the application was introduced.

On 3 September 2018 the deputy Minister of Health P.P. stated in public: “ [The applicant] is a fraudster who misappropriated 250 million euros together with another partner, and who knows who else, who also start being exposed, because the nephew of [M.] was his lawyer, setting up offshore companies for them so that they could transfer money abroad ”.

Relying on Article 6 § 2 the applicant complained that this statement, made before he had been proved guilty with final effect, could have influenced the outcome of the appeal proceedings, it had prejudged the adjudication of his case by the competent court and led the public to believe that he was guilty. He also complains under Article 13 that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the statement of the deputy Minister of Health, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?