THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KRASHIAS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
(Application no. 52551/18)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
20 June 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krashias and Others v. Cyprus,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Georgios A. Serghides,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 52551/18) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 October 2018 by four Cypriot nationals (“the applicants”), whose details are listed in the appended table and who were represented by Mr A. Angelides and Mr S. Angelides, lawyers practising in Nicosia;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr George L. Savvides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants by the Director of the Customs Department of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Director”). 2. By a letter of 29 June 2007, the Director informed the first three applicants of a debt consisting of duties (import and anti-dumping) and taxes totalling 323,189 euros (EUR) which they owed to the State in their capacity as directors of the fourth applicant, a company. 3. The applicants were informed of the content of the letter on 26 July 2007. They unsuccessfully challenged the imposition of the aforementioned duties and taxes by means of a recourse (judicial review proceedings; recourse no. 1353/07) and by a subsequent appeal (no. 142/09) which was dismissed on 26 November 2013. 4. In the meantime, on 27 April 2011 the Director brought criminal proceedings (no. 9646/11) in the District Court of Nicosia in connection with the applicants’ failure to pay those amounts. Under section 94 of the Customs Code Law of 2004 (L. 94(I)/2004) as in force at the relevant time, the offence of non-payment of a duty owed to the Director carried a fine of up to 5,000 Cypriot pounds ((CYP) – approximately EUR 8,742.33) or a sentence of up to one year’s imprisonment, or both. 5. The case was set down for hearing for the first time on 9 June 2011. A series of delays ensued, however. Between 9 June 2011 and 1 December 2011, the applicants sought the adjournment of the case. Between 1 December 2011 and 3 May 2012, 8 January 2013 and 21 March 2013, and from 8 July 2015 until 12 August 2015 the case was adjourned either at the request of the applicants only, or of the applicants and the prosecution jointly. The case was also adjourned between 3 May 2012 and 6 December 2012, and from 27 June 2013 until 17 October 2013 on account of the court’s inability to hear it. In addition, the case was adjourned from 17 October 2013 until 19 February 2015, but the reasons for those adjournments are unclear as the District Court’s registry did not keep readable verbatim records of the proceedings. 6. During the hearings which did take place, three witnesses were heard, and the court issued two interim decisions, on 28 March 2013 and 23 April 2015. 7. On 6 October 2015 the court delivered its judgment, in which it found the applicants guilty of the offences. It did not accept the applicants’ argument that the case should be dismissed owing to the delay in the proceedings, reasoning, inter alia, that they could not claim to have been under any uncertainty concerning their case as it had been clear to them all along that the prosecuting party would insist on collecting the unpaid duties and taxes. The court noted that even after the Director’s decision had been upheld on appeal in the above-mentioned civil proceedings they had chosen not to pay the money owed and had continued to dispute the decision, even though they admitted that they had not paid the amounts in question and had known of their obligation to pay since 26 July 2007. The court further stated, however, that “[t]he delay that [had] occurred [might] be taken into account for the calculation of the sentence”. 8. Between 5 November 2015 and 2 December 2015, the court heard the parties on the issue of the mitigation of the sentence. 9. On 2 December 2015 the court issued its decision regarding the applicants’ sentence. It noted, inter alia, that “the delay that [had] occurred both in the lodging of the criminal case and in the subsequent trial [would] be taken into account”. It finally imposed a fine of EUR 400 on each applicant and issued a payment order against them ordering them to pay jointly or severally the total amount of EUR 323,189 to the Director. 10. On 14 December 2015 the applicants lodged an appeal (no. 336/15) with the Supreme Court and on 16 December 2015 the prosecution cross‑appealed (nos. 332-335/15), challenging the sentence as insufficient and the court’s decision not to order the applicants to pay statutory interest on the amount due. 11. On 14 April 2016 the Supreme Court received the requisite verbatim records of the first-instance proceedings and on 27 April 2016 it instructed the parties to submit outlines of their written arguments. 12. Between 17 May 2016 and 2 February 2017, the proceedings were delayed pending the submission of the applicants’ outlines of their written arguments. They had applied for an extension of the original deadline owing to a delay in their receiving the verbatim records from the District Court. Between 6 March 2017 and 25 May 2017, the proceedings were delayed pending the submission of the prosecution’s written arguments following that party’s request for an extension of the relevant deadline. On 14 November 2017 counsel for the applicants requested the adjournment of the hearing for personal reasons. The case was set down for hearing on 14 February 2018 but on that date, it was adjourned by the court until 4 April 2018, when the hearing did eventually take place. 13. On 30 April 2018 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. It rejected the applicants’ appeal and upheld the findings of the criminal court concerning the fine imposed. However, the Supreme Court partly allowed the prosecution’s criminal appeals by ordering the applicants to pay statutory interest on the amount due to the Director.

Outcome for Article 6: violation