PAIVA DE ANDRADA REIS v. PORTUGAL - 56564/15 (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee) French Text [2023] ECHR 863 (07 November 2023)

PAIVA DE ANDRADA REIS v. PORTUGAL - 56564/15 (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee) French Text [2023] ECHR 863 (07 November 2023)

The refusal by the fiscal court to consider the applicant's criminal acquittal, based on an excessively formalistic interpretation of procedural rules, cast doubt on the acquittal and was incompatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ECHR 863
Parties
Applicant: Carlos Paiva de Andrada Reis; Respondent: Republic of Portugal
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Violation found
Legal Topics
Right to a Fair Trial, Presumption of Innocence, Fiscal Liability of Company Directors, Relationship Between Criminal and Fiscal Proceedings
Human Rights Law Tax Law Criminal Law Right to a Fair Trial Presumption of Innocence Fiscal Liability of Company Directors Relationship Between Criminal and Fiscal Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carlos Paiva de Andrada Reis

Applicant

Republic of Portugal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to consider an acquittal in criminal proceedings in subsequent fiscal proceedings violated the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal by the fiscal court to consider the applicant's criminal acquittal, based on an excessively formalistic interpretation of procedural rules, cast doubt on the acquittal and was incompatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Violation found

Orders

  • The application is declared admissible.
  • There has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.