SUPPORT US
REPORTS
Christiana Stilianidou 28 • 11 • 2023

Beltsios v. Greece – European Court condemns Greece for violation of Articles 5 and 6 ECHR

Christiana Stilianidou
Beltsios v. Greece – European Court condemns Greece for violation of Articles 5 and 6 ECHR
28 • 11 • 2023

In Beltsios v. Greece, the ECtHR condemned Greece for violation of Articles 6(2) and 5(4) of the ECHR as it held that: a) the references to the applicant’s person in a conviction handed down in the context of other criminal proceedings (in which he was not standing trial) violated the presumption of innocence; and b) the national authorities failed to rule “promptly” on the lawfulness of his detention. 

According to paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the ECHR, “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” The presumption of innocence, one of the basic procedural guarantees of the proper administration of justice, imposes an obligation to refrain from making premature statements on the guilt of an accused person, in particular by judges or other public officials (see more on the presumption of innocence).

According to paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the ECHR “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” (for the right to personal liberty and security in general as well as the right to a prompt review of the lawfulness of detention by a court in particular see more in 1, 2).

The ECtHR, ruling on the merits of the case, found that: 

  1. the contested statements and references to the applicant in the context of Decision No 4554/2013 had infringed the presumption of innocence. Notwithstanding the fact that the court in the context of those proceedings was not in fact in a position to determine the applicant’s guilt, it reached findings and opinions about his involvement in criminal acts in a manner that did not describe a situation of suspicion but could establish his guilt. In general, the wording used amounted to a clear statement, in the absence of a final judgment, that the applicant had committed the criminal offences in question.
  2. there had been a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR, due to the failure of the national authorities to rule “promptly” on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. This is because a period of approximately four months elapsed between the lodging of the appeal against the decision ordering his provisional detention and the publication of the decision in question (see more in paragraphs 22-25 of the judgment).
Where is the problem with the rule of law?

Respect for fundamental rights is one of the basic components of the rule of law. 

The fundamental rights that every human being should enjoy are enshrined, inter alia, in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a primary and undeniable obligation of the State to respect these rights. 

In this particular case, however, the European Court of Human Rights held that (a) there had been a violation of Article 6 (2) because the references to the applicant’s person in a conviction handed down in the context of other criminal proceedings violated the presumption of his innocence and b) there was a violation of Article 5(4) ECHR by reason of the failure of the national authorities to rule ‘promptly’ on the lawfulness of the applicant’s provisional detention. 

Christiana Stilianidou
More
Submit a report if you have detected a violation of the rule of law!
SIGNED REPORT VIA DEDICATED FORM ON GOVWATCH
ANONYMOUS REPORT VIA GLOBALEAKS
Support govwatch
DONATE