CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 46412/20 Aggeliki VOULGARIDOU against Greece lodged on 9 October 2020 communicated on 21 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Following a tax control, 50 litres of heating oil instead of fuel oil were found in the tank of a combine harvester owned by the applicant who was a farmer. By decision no. 31 of 10 December 2010, the Komotini customs authority held the applicant liable of smuggling at 20% of the offence and her son, who was driving the vehicle, at 80%, and ordered them to pay under customs legislation 4,458.97 euros (EUR). This consisted of (a) unpaid custom duties of EUR 24,27, (b) a smuggling fine of EUR 1,500 in accordance with Article 150 § 1 of the Customs Code and (c) an administrative fine of EUR 2,934.70 under Article 20 § 1 of Law no.   2873/2000. The applicant and her son were held jointly liable for the payment of the total amount. The applicant claims that she paid it and waived her right to exercise any remedies. By decision no. 2816 served on the applicant on 2 February 2011 and based on the same control, the Prefecture of Rodopi imposed on her a fine of EUR 14,673.51 under Article 35 § 2 of Law no. 2093/1992 as a sanction for the supply and use as motor fuel of the more leniently taxed heating oil. Following the dismissal at first instance of the applicant’s recourse against that fine she appealed. By its judgment no. A541/2019 (served on the applicant’s lawyer on 24 June 2020) the Komotini Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the ground of appeal relating to a violation of the ne bis in idem principle holding that the two fines protected different legal interests: the first one aimed at ensuring the respect of customs legislation and the other one aimed at preventing the illicit trafficking of heating fuel. Relying on Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the applicant complains of the confirmation of the fine by the administrative courts despite the imposition of another fine based on the same facts. She further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the cumulatively imposed fine had significantly exceeded the amount of tax actually evaded, placing an excessive and disproportionate burden on her as her annual income of pensioner farmer from 2004 to 2017 amounted to EUR 7,000 plus EUR   1,500 from agricultural activity. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the proceedings relating to the imposition on the applicant of the smuggling fine, the administrative fine under Article 20 § 1 of Law no.   2873/2000 and the fine imposed under Article 35 § 2 of Law no.   2093/1992 constitute “criminal proceedings” for the purpose of Article   4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention?   If so, has the applicant been tried twice for the same offence contrary to Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see   A and B v.   Norway [GC], nos.   24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 101-153, 15 November 2016, Goulandris and   Vardinogianni v. Greece , no. 1735/13, §§ 49-80, 16 June 2022, and Ruotsalainen v. Finland , no. 13079/03, §§ 41-57, 16 June 2009)?   2.     Did the cumulatively imposed fine constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and compatible with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (see Mamidakis v. Greece , no. 35533/04, §§ 43-48, 11   January 2007)?   3.     The parties are requested to submit factual information relevant to (a) the exact amounts of the fines imposed on the applicant and on her son and (b) any payments made by the applicant and by her son of the imposed fines.