Published on 13 November 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 41542/19 Nikolaos MAMAIS against Greece lodged on 31 July 2019 communicated on 26 October 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s allegations about duplication of proceedings through his acquittal in criminal proceedings and the imposition of an administrative fine.

In accordance with Article 16 of Law no. 1428/1984 illegal extraction of aggregates ( παράνομη εξόρυξη αδρανών υλικών ) shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years, and the administrative sanctions provided for in Article 5 of Law no. 5895/1933 together with a fine from EUR 16,000 to 160,000. On 19 May 2008 a criminal complaint was lodged against the applicant for illegal extraction of stone and on 18 September 2008 an administrative fine of EUR 16,000 was imposed on him.

By judgment no. 21/2013 of the Criminal Court of Syros the applicant was acquitted. Following the dismissal of his recourse ( προσφυγή ) against the fine, the applicant appealed before the administrative courts, invoking the criminal court’s judgment and contending that he had been finally acquitted on the merits for a criminal offence which was identical with the illegal extraction of stone giving rise to the imposed administrative penalty. The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal by judgment no. 1505/2019 confirming the fine and holding that, as the reason for his acquittal did not result from the criminal court’s acquittal judgment, the latter was not binding for the administrative court.

Relying on Article 6 § 2 and Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 the applicant complains of the refusal to annul the administrative penalty following his acquittal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, with respect to his complaint under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? In particular, did the applicant invoke before the administrative courts, at least in substance, the right on which he now wishes to rely before the Court, also in the light of judgments nos. 951/2018 and 1411/2022 of the Supreme Administrative Court?

3. If so, has the applicant been tried twice for the same offence contrary to Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?