I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in GEORGOULEAS v. GREECE and 1 other application.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-12-11
• Communication date: 2018-06-04
• Application number(s): 44612/13
• Country:   GRC
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 7, 7-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
  Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
  Prohibition of torture)
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
  Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities
  Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
  Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance
  Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence
  Respect for private life)
  Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence
  Respect for private life
  Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)
  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to receive information)
  Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)
  Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
  Just satisfaction)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.573627
• Prediction: No violation

• Inconsistent

Communication text used for prediction

Applications nos.
44612/13 and 45831/13Ilias GEORGOULEAS against Greeceand Spyridon NESTORAS against Greecelodged on 6 July 2013 and 12 July 2013 respectively The applications concern the imposition of fines in 2007 by the Hellenic Capital Market Commission on the applicants, Director General and employee respectively of the company “Global Money Centre, Ilias Georgouleas & Associates”, for disseminating false or inaccurate information concerning the shares’ value that could affect their price.
In particular, the Hellenic Market Commission considered that in 2003 and 2004 the applicants had participated in transactions intended to artificially determine the shares’ value of the company “Domiki Kritis SA” which had resulted in the dissemination of false or inaccurate information to the investors, thus violating Article 72 § 2 a) of Law no.
1969/1991.
The applicants lodged appeals with the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal against the decisions of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission.
On 31 October 2008 their appeals were accepted by the Court of Appeal, which annulled the decisions of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission on the grounds that Article 72 § 2 a) of law no.
1969/1991 could not be infringed by transactions but only by disseminating false or inaccurate information.
Following appeals on points of law lodged by the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, in 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeal.
In particular, it held that performing transactions with a view to artificially determining the shares’ value of a company was a way of disseminating false or inaccurate information and therefore, the applicants had acted in breach of Article 72 § 2 a) of law no.
1969/1991.
The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 7 of the Convention.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES In the circumstances of the present case, has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention?
In particular, is Article 7 applicable to the administrative sanctions imposed to the applicants by the Hellenic Capital Market Commission and confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court?
If so, could the applicants foresee, if need be with appropriate legal advice, on the basis of the domestic law and the domestic courts’ interpretation of it that their transactions concerning the shares of “Domiki Kritis SA” in 2003 and 2004 amounted to a breach of Article 72 § 2 a) of law no.
1969/1991?
Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the sanctions were imposed on the applicants fulfill the qualitative requirements as have been set out in the Court’s case-law under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no.
2) [GC], no.
10249/03, § 99, 17 September 2009)?
Application no 44612/13 Application no 45831/13