Published on 10 October 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 43765/20
Isabel José DOS SANTOS
against Portugal
lodged on 30 September 2020
communicated on 22 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a businesswoman and the daughter of the former President of the Republic of Angola.
In December 2019 and January 2020 respectively, civil and criminal proceedings were initiated against her in Angola for alleged embezzlement, money laundering, influence peddling, harmful management and forgery of documents in relation to facts which occurred while she was the chair of the board of Sonangol, the Angolan national oil company.
The application concerns the preventive seizure (arresto preventivo) of the applicant’s bank deposits and shareholdings for the initial sum of 1.150.856.279,45 euros (EUR), ordered by the investigating judge of the Central Investigation Court of Lisbon on 11 and 26 March 2020, following a rogatory letter of 23 December 2019 from the Angolan prosecuting authorities, under the Convention on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (“the CPLP Convention”) of 21 November 2005. In his decisions, the investigating judge also granted the request of the Angolan prosecuting authorities to cover the proceedings with judicial confidentiality (segredo de justiça) pursuant to Section 5 of the CPLP Convention.
On 7 May 2020 the decisions of the investigating judge were served on the applicant.
Invoking Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that she had no means to challenge the preventive seizure of her assets ordered by the investigating judge of the Central Investigation Court of Lisbon. She complains in particular of the fact that she had no access to the case file in view of the fact that it was covered by judicial confidentiality and that she did not have an effective remedy to challenge the decision taken pursuant to Section 5 of the COLP Convention.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she further alleges that the leaks of information concerning her case to the media breached her right to reputation.
Invoking Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant considers that the seizure of her assets has violated her right to be presumed innocent.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
In particular:
1.1. Was the preventive seizure of the applicant’s assets a measure “necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest” and proportionate, in the circumstances, to the pursuit of such interest within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Varvara c. Italie, no. 17475/09, §§ 83-84, 29 October 2013, and Filkin v. Portugal, no. 69729/12, §§ 84-90, 3 March 2020)?
1.2. Was the applicant afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting her case to the competent authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the preventive seizure of her assets (G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95; § 45, 21 May 2002; and Filkin, cited above, §§ 79 and 88)?
Complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention
2. Was Article 6 § 2 applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In the affirmative, was the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?
Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention
3.1.(a) Does the information imparted by the media concerning the preventive seizure of the applicant’s assets fall within the concept of “private life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 72, 29 March)?
3.1.(b) Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
3.2. In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, taking into account the State’s positive obligations in this field (see White v. Sweden, no. 42435/02, § 20, 19 September 2006)?