CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s78D9F4EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s402165CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7.5pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 17 November 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4864/20 Theodoros KATSALIROS against Greece and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ allegations that they had been tried and convicted twice for smuggling, both in criminal and in administrative proceedings, and that the presumption of innocence stemming from criminal acquittals had not been respected in the subsequent administrative proceedings. Smuggling fines were imposed by the administrative authorities, which the applicants challenged unsuccessfully before the administrative courts. The applicants’ data, representatives, and information relating to their cases are set out in the appendix. The applicants complain of violations of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. In applications nos. 12162/21, 12164/21, 12166/21 and 58459/21 applicants also complain that the Supreme Administrative Court (“SAC”) raised, of its own motion and for the first time, the issue of the inadmissibility of their pleas concerning the criminal acquittal, despite the fact that the lower courts had not questioned their admissibility and the State had not raised any relevant objections. They argue that by holding that it did not result from the file that the acquittals had become final, the SAC substituted the reasoning of the lower courts and deprived them of the opportunity to present their arguments. Further, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (in applications nos.   4523/21 and 5838/22), the applicants complain that rejecting as inadmissible the relevant grounds for appeal on points of law regarding the acquittal judgments or their additional observations, the SAC deprived them of access to a court and this amounted to excessive formalism. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common questions   1.     Have the applicants been tried twice for the same offences, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see, for instance, Sismanidis and Sitaridis v. Greece , nos. 66602/09 and 71879/12, §§ 40-47, 9 June 2016, and Kapetanios and Others v. Greece , nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, §§ 62-73, 30   April 2015)?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present cases (see, for instance, Sismanidis and Sitaridis v. Greece , nos. 66602/09 and 71879/12, §§ 55-58, 9 June 2016, and Kapetanios and Others v. Greece , nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, §§   82-88, 30   April 2015)?   Case-specific questions   3.     In application no. 4523/21, did the manner in which the Supreme Administrative Court declare inadmissible the first ground for appeal on points of law violate the applicant’s right of access to a court, guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the Supreme Administrative Court’s finding amount to “excessive formalism” (see, for instance, Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 80-82, 87-89 and 96-99, 5 April 2018, and Tsiolis v. Greece , no. 51774/17, §§ 57-60, 19 November 2024)?   4.     In application no. 5838/22, did the manner in which the Supreme Administrative Court declare inadmissible the fourth ground for appeal on points of law for lack of locus standi and the additional observations violate the applicants’ right of access to a court, guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the Supreme Administrative Court’s finding amount to “excessive formalism” (see, for instance, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 80-82, 87-89 and 96-99, 5 April 2018, and Efstathiou and Others v. Greece , no. 36998/02, §§ 28-35, 27 July 2006)?       APPENDIX No. Application Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Criminal Proceedings Administrative Proceedings Complaints 1. 4864/20 Katsaliros v. Greece 13/01/2020 Theodoros KATSALIROS unknown Athens Greek Pantelis MITSIS Judgment no.   75255/01 Athens Criminal Court of First Instance, acquittal for alcohol smuggling;   Decision no. 2012/2003 Indictment Division of Athens Court of Appeal (confirmed no. 2684/2003) terminated prosecution for alcohol smuggling.   Judgment no.   820/2019 SAC (12/09/2019) dismissed the relevant ground as unfounded confirming the appellate court’s finding that it did not result from the file that the criminal decision had become final. It upheld the administrative fine for alcohol smuggling Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2 2. 4523/21 Methenitis v. Greece 12/01/2021 Anastasios METHENITIS 1945 Athens Greek Vassilis CHIRDARIS Judgment no. 1/2002 Court of Cassation, acquittal for vehicle smuggling. Judgment no.   657/2020 SAC (24/08/2020) rejected the first ground as inadmissible; it held that the applicant had been acquitted based on the fact that his conduct constituted a mere customs infraction and not smuggling. It upheld the fine for vehicle and other goods smuggling   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2   Article 6 § 1 3. 12162/21 Petsas v. Greece 23/02/2021 Georgios PETSAS 1963 Thessaloniki Greek Dimitrios DIMOS Judgment no.   1632/2005 Ioannina Criminal Court of First Instance, acquittal for vehicle smuggling. Judgment no. 1704/2020 SAC (23/10/2020) held, among others, that it did not result from the file that the criminal decision had become final. It upheld the administrative fine for vehicle smuggling.   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2 4. 12164/21 Semertzidis v. Greece 23/02/2021 Nikolaos SEMERTZIDIS 1963 Thessaloniki Greek Dimitrios DIMOS Judgment no.   1632/2005 Ioannina Criminal Court of First Instance, acquittal for vehicle smuggling. Judgment no.   1702/2020 SAC (23/10/2020) held, among others, that it did not result from the file that the criminal decision had become final. It upheld the administrative fine for vehicle smuggling.   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2 5. 12166/21 Petsas v. Greece 23/02/2021 Georgios PETSAS 1963 Thessaloniki Greek Dimitrios DIMOS Judgment no.   1632/2005 Ioannina Criminal Court of First Instance, acquittal for vehicle smuggling. Judgment no.   1703/2020 SAC (23/10/2020) held, among others, that it did not result from the file that the criminal decision had become final. It upheld the fine for vehicle smuggling.   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2 6. 58459/21 Tsirakmanis v. Greece 24/11/2021 Nikolaos TSIRAKMANIS 1967 Thessaloniki Greek Spyridon KONSTANTOPOULOS Judgment no.   279/2002 Thessaloniki Criminal Court of First Instance, acquittal for smuggling. Judgment no.   2729/2020 SAC (26/5/2021) held, among others, that even though the applicant had alleged that the criminal acquittal had become final, he had not adduced evidence to that effect. It upheld the fine for smuggling.   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2 7. 5838/22 Kontominas v. Greece 19/01/2022 Petros KONTOMINAS 1938 Glyfada Attikis Greek Charalambos KONTOMINAS 1962 Glyfada Attikis Greek - Judgment no.   6305/2012 Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, acquitted the applicants for fish smuggling for the period 1/7/04 – 3/9/04;   Decision no. 818/2013 Indictment Division of Piraeus Court of First Instance, dropped the charges against the 1 st applicant for forgery after use of ship’s logbook;   Judgment no.   1377/2015 Athens Criminal Court of Appeal acquitted the applicants for forgery after use and fraud against the EEC.   Judgment no.   556/2021 SAC (17/9/2021) found no breach of the ne bis in idem principle as the two sets of proceedings were independent and held that decision no. 818/2013 was not relevant. It declared inadmissible the ground for appeal regarding judgment no. 1377/2015. It upheld the smuggling fine. Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2   Article 6 § 1 8. 10805/22 Kounelis v. Greece 18/02/2022 Nikolaos KOUNELIS 1957 Amarousio Attikis Greek Emmanouil GERAKIOS Decision no.   2775/1997 Indictment Division of Athens Court of Appeal dropped the charges of fraud against the State and complicity in forgery after use.   Judgment no.   1699/2021 SAC (2/11/2021) rejected the grounds regarding the ne bis in idem and Article 6 § 2 for having been invoked in an inadmissible manner. It upheld the fine for petroleum products smuggling.   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7   Article 6 § 2