14 Dec Civil liability is wider than criminal liability

In the case of Ilias Papageorgiou v. Greece (application no. 44101/13, 10.12.2020) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned decisions not in the applicant’s favour in civil proceedings despite his having been acquitted in criminal proceedings for the same events. In 2005 the applicant had a car accident and his passenger was injured. In 2007 he was acquitted in criminal proceedings of drink driving in a final judgment. The passenger lodged an action against the applicant and his insurance company. The insurance company took an action against the applicant, claiming that he, rather than the company, was responsible as he had been over the alcohol limit at the time. The first-instance court ordered the applicant and the insurance company to pay compensation, but dismissed the insurance company’s claim vis-à-vis the applicant. On appeal, the Athens Court of Appeal held that it was not bound by the applicant’s acquittal in the criminal courts and that, under the terms of the insurance contract, the applicant’s conduct exempted the insurance company from liability. 

The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence encompassed the burden of proof, legal presumptions of fact and law, privilege against self-incrimination, pre-trial publicity and premature pronouncements of a defendant’s guilt.

 The court noted that the civil proceedings in the case had not been an extension of the criminal proceedings. It was acceptable that the evidentiary standards had differed. The Court considered that an acquittal had not exonerated the applicant from civil responsibility. The insurance company had had a right to rely on the clauses of the insurance contract regardless of the acquittal. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had not attributed guilt or criminal liability to the applicant. The proceedings had, in the light of this, not been contrary to the presumption of innocence and there had been no violation of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights