THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PAPADOPOULOS v. GREECE
(Application no. 10787/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 December 2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Papadopoulos v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Lətif Hüseynov, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Darian Pavli, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10787/15) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 February 2015 by a Greek national, Mr Kosmas Papadopoulos (“the applicant”), who was born in 1941, lives in Komotini and was represented by Mr K. Remelis, a lawyer practising in Athens;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, and their Agent’s delegate, Ms A. Magrippi, President and Legal Representative A at the State Legal Council respectively, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
the decision of 10 January 2023 to reject the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government;
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the applicant’s allegation that he had been tried and convicted twice for the same offence and that the presumption of innocence stemming from a criminal acquittal in respect of smuggling had not been respected in subsequent administrative proceedings. The applicant further claimed that the fine imposed was disproportionate and therefore amounted to a violation of his property rights. 2. On 16 September 2002 the competent Customs Office (Τελωνείο Κομοτηνής) declared the applicant, together with one other person, K., jointly and severally liable of smuggling under the Greek Customs Code. The offence was related to the purchase and circulation in Greece of a vehicle which had been imported without paying customs duties and taxes on the grounds of a false relocation declaration made by its initial owner, K. 3. The applicant was given an administrative fine for smuggling (πολλαπλό τέλος λαθρεμπορίας) equivalent to 300,086.63 euros (EUR), together with a bill for unpaid taxes equivalent to EUR 100,362.21, as well as other charges. The applicant contested that decision before the domestic administrative courts. 4. While his case before the first-instance administrative court was pending, the applicant was acquitted of the charge of smuggling by judgment no. 896/2004 of the Thrace Criminal Court of Appeal. This judgment was delivered on 7 July 2004 and it follows from the case file that no appeal was lodged against it, thus it became irrevocable. The applicant referred to his criminal acquittal as part of his submissions before the first instance court. 5. By judgment no. 218/2006, delivered on 2 October 2006, the Komotini Administrative Court of First Instance granted his application taking into consideration, among others, the criminal acquittal invoked. 6. Following an appeal lodged by the Customs Office, the Komotini Administrative Court of Appeal reconsidered the case. By judgment no. 375/2011 delivered on 5 December 2011, the latter granted the appeal, re-examined the application on the merits and dismissed it. It held more specifically that, despite the criminal court’s conclusions on the lack of intent from the applicant’s side, it transpired from several pieces of evidence that the applicant had acted with intent. 7. On 1 March 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Administrative Court. The latter was rejected initially as manifestly inadmissible by decision no. 3494/2012 in accordance with the provision of Article 34A of Presidential Decree no. 18/1989. 8. Upon the applicant’s request, the case was referred to be heard by a section. By decision no. 1780/2014 delivered on 14 May 2014, the second section of the Supreme Administrative Court finally rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible for failure to comply with the special admissibility conditions provided in section 12 of Law no. 3900/2010 for an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Administrative Court to be admissible. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
9. A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Kapetanios and Others v. Greece (nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, § 36-47, 30 April 2015).

Outcome for Article P7-4: violation