SECOND SECTION
CASE OF NEOPHYTOU v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 28805/21)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
23 September 2025
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Neophytou v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Tim Eicke,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 28805/21) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 June 2021 by a Cypriot national, Mr Achilleos Neophytou, and a British national, Mr Stefanos Neophytou (“the applicants”), who were born in 1950 and 1990 respectively, who live in Birmingham and Wrexham and who were represented by Mr S. Murria (Newton Law Practice), a lawyer practising in Birmingham. Following the close of proceedings, Mr Virinder Ghaiwal (Londonium Solicitors), a lawyer practising in London, replaced Mr Murria as the applicants’ representative;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the confiscation proceedings to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr M. Boulton of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the decision of the Cypriot Government not to exercise their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants, a father and son, were convicted in the Crown Court on 16 September 2016 of conspiring to manage a brothel. They were sentenced to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, and were released on licence on 3 December 2017. 2. The prosecution applied for a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”). Pursuant to POCA, the court could make a confiscation order before sentencing or postpone the proceedings for a specified period of two years (which could be extended) from the date of conviction. In R v. Guraj ([2016] UKSC 65) the Supreme Court held that a procedural defect which gave rise to no unfairness, or none that could not be cured, would be no obstacle to making a confiscation order. 3. A directions hearing scheduled for 19 May 2017 took place on that date, even though both parties had missed deadlines to submit statements required by POCA. The court directed an interim hearing on 22 September 2017 and a final hearing on 20 November 2017. 4. Further directions hearings took place in September 2017, December 2017 and March 2018. 5. The final confiscation hearing began on 10 August 2018 but was postponed due to a lack of court time. The judge granted the prosecution’s application to extend the specified two-year period (see paragraph 2 above). 6. The trial resumed between 13 and 15 February 2019 and 11 and 13 March 2019. On each occasion it was postponed due to a lack of court time. 7. On 29 March 2019 a further directions hearing took place. The prosecution’s file note indicated that the judge was not happy with the defence for requesting an adjournment. 8. The trial resumed between 29 April and 2 May 2019 and was postponed due to a lack of court time. 9. On 7 June 2019 the parties made submissions to the judge, who indicated that he would hand down his ruling by 17 July 2019. 10. On 17 January 2020 the judge made a confiscation order against each applicant in the sum of GBP 3,174,809.18 to be paid within three months (later extended to six months), with a ten-year term of imprisonment in default. 11. The judge noted that the finances had been “complicated”. Mistakes had been made by both parties’ financial experts and their reports had to be revised on several occasions causing real delays and further complicating the case. Furthermore, the time estimate for the proceedings had been wholly inadequate, meaning that on several occasions the case had to be adjourned. The delays were lengthy as all counsel had been unavailable for long periods of time. The judge indicated that he had been unable to produce the judgment for several months after hearing final submissions as he was not given the number of reading days required to consider and write it. 12. The applicants were refused permission to appeal by a Single Judge. They renewed their application to the Court of Appeal, which was denied by a full court on 9 February 2021. 13. One of the grounds of appeal was that the hearing was unfair because of the delay and that some adjustment should accordingly be made. The court considered this ground to be “unarguable” as “the delays were not such as to prejudice the applicants”. It said the following :
“There were numerous delays in the confiscation proceedings being concluded. The delays in concluding the hearings were principally caused by (1) the financial reports on each side needing to be revised by the experts to rectify mistakes and to deal with new points raised by counsel and by the judge; and (2) court days and counsel being unavailable – a problem exacerbated by inadequate time estimates giving rise to a number of adjournments. In addition, the judge was unable to produce the judgment for several months due to the lack of reading days provided for him to be able properly to consider the case.”
14. On 25 November 2021 the case was listed for enforcement, as the applicants had paid only GBP 49,000 in satisfaction of the confiscation order. They applied for the enforcement proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process. The application was refused by the District Judge and warrants were issued for their arrest. 15. The applicants sought permission to judicially review the District Judge’s ruling, arguing, inter alia, that the delay between their conviction and the making of the order, and between the making of the order and the exhaustion of their appeal rights, had breached their Article 6 right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 16. On 27 April 2022 the High Court refused the application for permission. It noted that the delay had occurred before the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal; the applicants had not alleged, and there was no basis for alleging, that there had been any subsequent delays. As the Court of Appeal had found that the delays had no significant prejudicial impact on the applicants, there was no arguable basis for challenging the decision not to stay the enforcement proceedings on grounds of delay. 17. The applicants did not renew the judicial review application before the High Court, and were subsequently imprisoned for defaulting on the confiscation order. 18. They complain under Article 6 that the confiscation proceedings violated their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

Outcome for Article 6: violation