Supervisors info:
Χαραλαμπος Χρυσανθάκης, Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Πολιτικής Επιστήμης & Δημόσιας Διοίκησης, ΕΚΠΑ
Summary:
The presumption of innocence is enshrined in Article 6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and is a procedural guarantee of the criminal proceedings, but also a substantial guarantee related to the personality of the person. Through the broad interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the application of the presumption of innocence has been extended in the case of the administrative procedure and trial, when it is prosecuted for the same offense in substance.
The relationship between the criminal proceedings and the administrative procedure and, in particular, the influence of the former in the latter, has been a matter of great concern in recent years by the case law of the ECHR but also by the domestic administrative courts mainly in terms of the presumption of innocence and the principle ne bis in idem (Article 4 of the 7th ECHR Protocol). As regards the application of these two guarantees, which are similar in nature and disputes, the ECHR and the Council of State (and consequently the administrative courts) have divergent views in cases where an acquittal of a criminal court proceeds with an administrative proceeding concerning the imposition of an administrative sanction at the expense of the acquittal for the same facts (idem factum).
On this issue we will take into consideration the most important Greek decisions of the ECHR, namely Stavropoulos (2007), Engel (1976), Zolotukhine (2009), Mamidakis (2007), Kapetanios and others (2015), Sismanidis and Sitardis , A and B v. Norway (2016), the decision of the Court of Justice EU (C-617/10, Fransson of 2013, and the Decisions of the Council of State 990/2004, 1522/2010, 1741/2015, 2403/2015, 1992/2016, 1993/2016 and 680/2017).
Keywords:
Presumption of Innocence, Administrative Courts, ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, case law
