003-7039830-9502965

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 178 (2021)   03.06.2021   Judgment and decision of 3 June 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing one Chamber judgment1 and one   decision2:   The judgment is summarised below;   The decision can be consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release.   The judgment summarised below is available only in English.   Busuttil v. Malta (application no. 48431/18)   The applicant, Antonio Busuttil, is a Maltese national who was born in 1947 and lives in Sliema   (Malta).   The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, as a director of a company, in which   he was found guilty of failing to pay tax dues, with the use of legal presumptions.   In 2001 the applicant became a co-director (owning 25% of the shares) of company M., where he   was already employed, following an invitation from the two other directors. During the period   2003-06, company M. failed to submit to the authorities the relevant tax forms and payments of   provisional tax and national insurance contributions on behalf of its employees. After the applicant’s   departure in 2006, under the management of the two other directors, the company went bankrupt.   In 2011 the tax authorities ordered the applicant to pay, on behalf of the company, approximately   323,500 euros (EUR) in outstanding tax.   Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention, the applicant complains that   a presumption of guilt was applied against him on the basis that he was the director of company M.,   despite the fact that the situation had been hidden from him.   No violation of Article 6 § 2   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Contacts pour la presse   Pendant la crise sanitaire actuelle, les journalistes peuvent continuer à contacter l’unité de la presse   via [email protected]   Tracey Turner-Tretz   Denis Lambert   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s   delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five   judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/en/web/execution.   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Inci Ertekin   Neil Connolly   Jane Swift   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2