The applicant, Stephen Anthony Saccoccia, is a national of the United States of America who was born in 1958 and is currently serving a 660-year prison sentence in the United States for large-scale money laundering.
In the context of the criminal proceedings against Mr Saccoccia, the Austrian courts decided to take over the execution of a final forfeiture order issued by a United States court in respect of his Austrian assets, amounting to 80,000,000 Austrian schillings (approximately EUR 5,800,000). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained about the lack of a public hearing concerning the execution of the forfeiture order in Austria. Further relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he alleged that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property had been infringed.
The Court considered that the proceedings had involved technical issues of inter-State cooperation in combating money-laundering through the enforcement of a foreign forfeiture order and had not required the Austrian courts to hear witnesses or indeed the applicant himself, his credibility not having been in question. The courts had therefore been able to fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties’ written submissions and there had been no need for an oral hearing. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.
The Court further considered that the execution of the forfeiture order had had a basis in Austrian law and had the legitimate aim of improving international co-operation in ensuring that money derived from drug dealing was actually forfeited. Furthermore, the applicant had been represented throughout the Austrian proceedings by a lawyer and had made ample use of the possibility to submit arguments. The Court therefore found that the execution of the forfeiture order had not amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s property rights and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
(from the official press-release prepared by the Registry Office of the European Court of Human Rights)