CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .sC4207DBA { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)116 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Mamidakis against Greece   (Application No. 35533/04, judgment of 11 January 2007, final on 11 April 2007)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the imposition of a disproportionate customs fine on the applicant (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)116   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Mamidakis against Greece   Introductory case summary   The case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to his being subjected in 1997 in his personal capacity to a customs fine exceeding 3 million euro for smuggling petroleum and the fact that he was declared jointly liable for paying fines of more than 4.9 million euro imposed upon others for customs offences. The European Court, while taking into account the states’ margin of appreciation in this field, found that the imposition of the fine in question caused such a blow to the applicant’s financial situation that it amounted to a disproportionate measure in relation to the legitimate aim pursued (§48 of the judgment) (violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 10   000 EUR 10   000 EUR 20   000 EUR Paid on 10/07/2007   b) Individual measures   The applicant did not request pecuniary damages from the European Court, which awarded him just satisfaction of 10000 euro in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The authorities indicated that further to an application before the competent authorities the applicant’s debt was subject to beneficial legislation (reduction of the total sum and payment of the remainder in instalments). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   Article 150, paragraph 1, of the Customs Code in force at the material time provided fines of from twice to ten times the amount of duty involved in the offence. This was amended by Article 1§57 of Law No. 3583/2007 which provides a fine of no more than five times the duty due in respect of the transaction at issue.   The European Court’s judgment, translated into Greek, has been sent to the Special Tax Department ( Ειδικό Νομικό Γραφείο Φορολογίας ) and to the Directorate General of Customs and Consumption Taxes within the Ministry of Finance, in order to ensure the broadest possible dissemination amongst customs and tax authorities. The judgment has also been sent to the Ministry of Justice and subsequently to the President and the Prosecutor General of the Council of State (the supreme administrative court) for dissemination to all administrative courts. The translation is also available on the website of the State Legal Council ( www.nsk.gov.g r ).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies