Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU - C 220/13 P / Judgment

Kalliopi Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
COURT (First Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
10/07/2014
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2057

Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE

Title VI: Justice

Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU - C 220/13 P / Judgment
    Key facts of the case:
     
    (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Omissions on the part of the Court of Auditors — Claim for compensation for harm caused — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Principle of sincere cooperation — Powers — Conduct of preliminary investigations)
     
    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
     
    99. In accordance with Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where an appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs. Under Article 138(1) of those Rules, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) of those Rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and Ms Nikolaou has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
     
    On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby:
    1. Dismisses the appeal;
    2. Orders Ms Kalliopi Nikolaou to pay the costs.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

     

    35. In that connection, it must be recalled that the principle of the presumption of innocence, laid down in Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which corresponds to Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, may be infringed in particular if, by its reasoning, a judgment reflects the opinion that a person is guilty of an offence after the criminal proceedings have been closed by his acquittal (see ECHR Cases Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41 to 44, ECHR 2000-X and Teodor v. Romania, no. 46878/06, § 36 and 37, 4 June 2013).