Sentences imposed by the administrative courts in spite of acquittals in criminal proceedings: violations of the Convention

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered its Chamber judgment in the case of Kapetanios and Others v. Greece (application nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) with regard to all three applications, and

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with regard to Mr Kapetanios’s application.

The case concerned the imposition of administrative fines on individuals accused of contraband who had been acquitted of a criminal offence.

The Court found in particular that the fact of ordering the three applicants to pay administrative fines, even though they had been acquitted by the criminal courts of the same offence in respect of the same set of facts, was contrary both to the right to the presumption of innocence and to the right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem).

The Court also held, with regard to Mr Kapetanios, that the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts, which lasted twenty-two years, had been excessive, and that at the relevant time there was no effective remedy available under domestic law in this connection.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of İsmail Sezer v. Turkey (application no. 36807/07) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

The case concerned a disciplinary measure taken against a teacher, who held office in a union, for taking part in a panel discussion organised by a political party.

The Court found in particular that the reprimand imposed on Mr Sezer constituted a disproportionate restriction of his freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11. The Court took account of the discretion shown by Mr Sezer during the panel discussion, his capacity as union officer on that occasion and the potentially chilling effect of such a sanction on the participation of other union members in events to defend their members’ interests.

The Court also found that the only remedy open to Mr Sezer to dispute the lawfulness of the sanction, namely an administrative appeal to a higher authority, had not constituted an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13.