Published on 8 January 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 54725/19
Loukas KREMMYDAS
against Greece
lodged on 27 September 2019
communicated on 15 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant was a municipality employee who, for a certain period, was collecting the payments for water charges, issuing the relevant receipts and transferring the amounts to the municipality.
On 15 May 2013 the municipality council referred his case to the disciplinary council on account of 31 incidents where citizens wrongly appeared as owing water charges to the municipality; this decision was corrected in June 2013 and included a total of 63 incidents. By decision no. 21/2014 the Sterea Ellada Disciplinary Council for municipality employees dismissed the applicant from his post on the grounds that, after he had received payments for water charges, he deleted the relevant invoices in the municipality’s system so that the amounts appeared as unpaid and embezzled a total amount of EUR 2,740.94.
In parallel, following a criminal complaint of 5 June 2013, the applicant was accused of (i) misappropriation of funds, (ii) embezzlement and (iii) forgery. The applicant was convicted at first instance. He was finally acquitted by judgment no. 87/2017 of the Lamia Criminal Court of Appeal issued on 4 December 2017, as it was not proved beyond doubt that he had committed the offences. This decision held that as the amounts were paid in cash or by payment orders via a bank, and the management of the accounts’ was untidy and incomplete, the residents were complaining that they appeared as owing the water charges despite having paid them. It further stated that after the criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant, the municipality proceeded to write off the debts in several decisions, as it was found that the amounts allegedly due had in fact been paid. The writing-off of debts continued after the applicant’s conviction at first instance.
The applicant challenged his dismissal before the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgment no. 601/2019 of 28 March 2019 ruled that the final criminal acquittal was binding as regards the 31 incidents that had constituted the initial disciplinary proceedings, but not as regards the 32 incidents for which the applicant had not been criminally prosecuted. It further held that in 12 incidents the applicant had received payments for a total amount of EUR 786,50 without transferring them to the municipality and dismissed the application.
Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention the applicant complains that the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment had breached the presumption of innocence as it had not taken into account the deficiencies of the municipality accounts’ management which was the general ground of his acquittal and this was also shown by the findings of a disciplinary investigation. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 § 1, he complains that the Supreme Administrative Court did not take into account the evidence submitted by the applicant that in eight out of the twelve cases to which it referred, the debts had been written off because of the unreliability of the accounts’ management.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 2 of the Convention applicable in the circumstances of the case? If so, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy