Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 151
April 2012
Silickienė v. Lithuania - 20496/02
Judgment 10.4.2012 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Confiscation of property of an accused’s widow: no violation
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Confiscation of property of an accused’s widow: no violation
Facts – The applicant’s husband M.S., who had been a high-ranking tax police officer, was charged with forming and leading a criminal organisation for smuggling. In 2000 the authorities froze certain assets belonging to M.S., his mother and the applicant as they suspected that the property had been acquired as a result of criminal activities. M.S.’s mother appealed and some of her assets were released. The applicant, however, did not lodge any appeal. In 2003 M.S. committed suicide and the applicant and M.S.’s mother requested continuation of the criminal proceedings in order to seek his rehabilitation. The court decided to continue the proceedings in so far as they concerned the activities of the criminal association organised by M.S. and appointed a lawyer to defend his interests. In 2004 the court held that there were no grounds to exculpate M.S. since the available evidence suggested that he was guilty of the offences. However, in view of his death, it discontinued the proceedings against him, while at the same time convicting some of his co-accused. The court also ordered confiscation of certain property, including the applicant’s apartment and shares she held in a telecommunications company, on the grounds that it had been acquired as a result of M.S.’s criminal activities. The appeals against that judgment were dismissed, inter alia, on the grounds that the applicant’s property had been acquired through the criminal organisation’s illegal activities as the applicant had doubtlessly been aware.
Law
Article 6 § 1: The applicant argued that she had been unable to defend her rights in the criminal proceedings against her husband which had resulted in the confiscation of her property. The Court thus had to determine whether, in the light of the severity of that measure, the domestic legal procedure had afforded the applicant an adequate opportunity to put her case to the courts. While it was true that the applicant was not a party to the criminal proceedings against the criminal organisation, the system in question had not been without safeguards. Firstly, the applicant could have sought judicial review proceedings of the initial 2000 seizure measure. She could also have explained the origin of her property had she chosen to testify in the criminal proceedings, but had not availed herself of that opportunity either. Lastly, after M.S.’s death the court had appointed a lawyer to represent his interests in the criminal proceedings and, following the first-instance judgment, his family had hired another lawyer to represent their interests, including the applicant’s proprietary interests. In those circumstances, even though in principle persons whose property was confiscated should have been formally granted the status of a party to the proceedings resulting in such measures, the Court accepted that in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case the Lithuanian authorities had de facto afforded her a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to adequately protect her interests.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 2: The Court reiterated that criminal liability did not survive the suspect’s death and that imposing criminal sanctions on the living in respect of acts apparently committed by a deceased called for its careful scrutiny. In the applicant’s case, as explained by the appellate court, which had direct knowledge of the facts, the confiscated property had not been acquired through the criminal acts of M.S. alone, but rather from the illicit proceeds of the criminal activities of an entire criminal organisation, whose members had ultimately been convicted. Moreover, the trial court had established that in order to purchase the confiscated apartment the applicant had taken a loan from unexplained sources and that the confiscated shares had been purchased through an off-shore company used by the criminal organisation to launder the illegally obtained money. The applicant had accordingly not been punished for the criminal acts of her late husband, and had not inherited his guilt.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The confiscation of the property, which had been in accordance with the law, had pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring that the use of the property at issue did not procure the applicant a pecuniary advantage to the detriment of the community. What remained to be determined was whether a fair balance was struck between that aim and the applicant’s fundamental rights, bearing in mind, inter alia, her behaviour. In that connection, the Court noted the appellate court’s finding that the applicant had direct knowledge that the confiscated property could only have been purchased with the proceeds of the criminal organisation’s unlawful enterprise and in separate criminal proceedings had confessed to having committed crimes with a view to helping her husband escape criminal liability while he was detained. The impugned confiscation proceedings concerned both the legality of and the justification for the measure and had established that all the confiscated property had been purchased with the proceeds of illegal activities. Lastly, given the scale, systematic nature and organisational level of the criminal activity at issue, the confiscation measure complained of may have appeared essential in the fight against organised crime. Given the margin of appreciation afforded to the States in combating the most serious crimes, the interference with the applicant’s property rights had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy