THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ACHTYPI v. GREECE
(Application no. 58669/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
3 February 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Achtypi v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Peeter Roosma, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Lətif Hüseynov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 58669/19) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 November 2019 by a Greek national, Ms Dionysia Achtypi (“the applicant”), who was born in 1953, lives in Nea Smyrni and was represented by Mr A. Anagnostakis, a lawyer practising in Athens;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 2 of the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent Ms N. Marioli, President of the State Legal Council and their Agent’s delegate, Ms Z. Chatzipavou, Legal Adviser at the State Legal Council, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns allegedly incriminating statements given regarding the applicant during criminal proceedings conducted against one of her co‑defendants. 2. The applicant worked as a civil servant in the pension awards department of the Social Security Fund (IKA-ETAM), a public‑law entity. In 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, E.M. (also a civil servant at the IKA-ETAM), and three other individuals. The applicant was charged with fraud committed to the detriment of a public‑law entity, breach of duty and misappropriation of documents. The applicant and her co‑defendants were indicted to stand trial together and, by judgment no. 76/2019, the Athens Three‑Member Misdemeanour Court of Appeal (Τριμελές Εφετείο Πλημμελημάτων) found them guilty on appeal. Following an appeal on points of law by the applicant, the Court of Cassation allowed her objection that the summons (κλητήριο θέσπισμα) had been invalid. By judgment no. 697/2019, it overturned the conviction and remitted the case to the Athens Three‑Member Misdemeanour Court of Appeal. 3. The Athens Three‑Member Misdemeanour Court of Appeal reheard the case and delivered judgment no. 2634/2019 on 6 May 2019. It noted at the outset that the summons in respect of, inter alia, the applicant had been invalid and that, as a result, the charges against her had become time‑barred. It therefore separated the proceedings against the applicant from those against the other co‑defendants and referred her case to the relevant prosecutor for further action. 4. In the same judgment, the appellate court went on to assess the criminal responsibility of E.M., who was charged with instigating fraud committed to the detriment of a public-law entity, and found her guilty. The judgment made several references to the role played by the applicant in connection with the offence in question. The applicant’s full name was mentioned several times in the judgment. 5. The most relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
“[Page 39] It was established that the first accused [the applicant] prepared [a] new ... form on 12 May 2011[in which she] calculated the relevant working days for the benefit of V.M., the brother of E.M. ... [She then] issued the corresponding decisions granting a pension on the basis of the working days as recorded in the amended form, which [the applicant] had prepared herself; the information entered in the [form] did not correspond to the truth, thereby causing damage to IKA-ETAM’s property ... and resulting in a corresponding benefit for V.M ... Accordingly, the intent [δόλος] of Dionysia Achtypi was to ensure that V.M. was granted a higher pension ...
[Page 40] It was also established that the third accused, E.M., had induced the first accused, Dionysia Achtypi, through insistence and forcefulness, to commit ... fraud to the detriment of the public-law entity IKA-ETAM ...
[Page 41] The time when the third accused, E.M., instigated the first accused, Dionysia Achtypi, to commit fraud, which [the applicant] committed, clearly falls within the period between 5 and 12 May 2011 ... [On] 5 May 2011 the original ... form concerning V.M. was prepared, recording fewer working days ... [Subsequently], under pressure exerted by his sister and third accused [E.M.], through telephone calls, ... [the applicant] deleted the original ... form ... [One] week later, on 12 May 2011, she prepared a second ... form, this time with additional working days [recorded for] V.M. ...”
6. The appellate court found E.M. guilty of instigating fraud. It concluded that, through the pressure she had exerted and her entreaties, E.M. had induced the applicant – referred to as “the first accused, Dionysia Achtypi” – to carry out the act of fraud, which she had ultimately committed. 7. Subsequently, by order no. 2480/2021, the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of First Instance (Συμβούλιο Πλημμελειοδικών), terminated the criminal proceedings (έπαυσε οριστικά την ποινική δίωξη) against the applicant with final effect, as the charges had become time‑barred. 8. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the impugned statements in judgment no. 2634/2019 had amounted to a premature expression of her guilt, thus breaching her right to the presumption of innocence.

Outcome for Article 6: violation