ECtHR Cases July–September 2021

Abdulkhanov v. Russia (no. 35012/10)

The applicant, Rizvan Abdulkhanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Grozny (Russia). The case concerns the serious wounding of the applicant by the police and their allegedly obstructing him from receiving medical treatment for his injuries.

Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was seriously wounded as the result of excessive use of force by the police, that the authorities prevented him from receiving necessary medical treatment and failed to investigate the matter effectively.

Tkhelidze v. Georgia (application no. 33056/17)

The case concerned the Georgian authorities’ failure to protect the applicant’s daughter from domestic violence and to conduct an effective investigation into the matter.

The Court found that the police had to have been aware that the applicant’s daughter had been in danger. Despite the various protective measures that they could have implemented, they had failed to prevent gender-based violence against her, which culminated in her death. The Court found that the police inaction could be considered a systemic failure. There was a pressing need to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the possibility that gender-based discrimination and bias had been behind the police’s lack of action.

Estemirova v. Russia (application no. 42705/11)

The case concerned the abduction and murder of a well-known human-rights activist, Natalia Estemirova, and the effectiveness of the ensuing investigation.

The Court found that the Government’s failure to provide a full copy of the criminal case file had undermined its ability to assess the quality of the investigation. Given the above failure the Court was unable to conclude that the investigation had been carried out thoroughly, particularly taking into account the material in the Court’s possession and that certain contradictions in the expert evidence remained unsolved led it to doubt that the investigation had been effective. Taking into account that the criminal investigation is still open, the Court indicated that the authorities should, in so far possible, attempt to ascertain the circumstances of Ms Estemirova’s abduction and murder, identifying the perpetrators, and punishing those responsible, where appropriate. Lastly, the Court found that the applicant had not made out a case that Natalia Estemirova, had been abducted by State agents, and the evidence did not support the State involvement in her murder.

Kasilov v. Russia (no. 2599/18)

The applicant, Arkadiy Kasilov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969. He is detained in Yujno-Sakhalinsk (Sakhalin Region, Russia). The case concerns Mr Kasilov’s detention following the delivery, at first instance, of a judgment convicting him in 2017 (five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment); the applicant’s conditions of detention in a remand prison; and the retention of a security (totalling some 23,590 euros) which he had paid in 2015 for his release on licence during the trial, and which was refunded to him in 2018 following the delivery of the appeal judgment.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kasilov complains about his conditions of detention in the remand prison, and in particular of the lack of space and the overcrowding in the cell in which he was detained. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), Mr Kasilov complains of his inability to appeal against the decision to place him in detention set out in the first instance judgment convicting him. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Kasilov complains of the retention of the security between the delivery of the judgment convicting him (2017) and the delivery of the appeal judgment (2018), despite his immediate placement in detention. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Mr Kasilov complains that he had had no effective remedy in order to claim the refund of his deposit before the judgment convicting him had become final.

Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland (no. 76813/16)

The applicants, Robert Kuchta and Sebastian Mętel, are Polish nationals who were born in 1976 and 1980 respectively and live in Cracow. The case concerns the applicants’ arrest in 2015 following a knife attack in their apartment block.

Tear gas was allegedly used. They were taken to a police station, where they allege that they were beaten. A prosecutorial investigation did not lead to charges being brought against the alleged perpetrators. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicants complain of ill-treatment during their arrest and questioning, and that the investigation into their accusations was not ‘thorough and effective’.

Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10)

The applicant, Oleksiy Oleksandrovych Nechay, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kyiv. The case concerns the duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the proceedings against him. He relies on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.

Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 1172/12)

The applicants, Elnur Akif oğlu Mammadov and İdrak Telman oğlu Abbasov are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1984 and 1976 respectively and at the relevant time lived in Baku. The case concerns a police operation at the premises of the Milli Yol newspaper. Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants, reporters for a Baku-based non-governmental organisation specialised in the protection of journalist’s rights, allege that the police seized their camera equipment when they went to report on the ongoing operation, preventing them from recording. Also relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention, the first applicant alleges that he was unlawfully arrested during the operation and detained for one hour.

Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey (application no. 23199/17)

The case concerned the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention on account of the editorial stance taken by the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet in its articles and in posts on social media, criticising certain government policies.

The Court found in particular that: the decisions of the domestic courts ordering the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention had been based on mere suspicion that did not reach the required level of reasonableness; the acts for which the applicants had been held criminally responsible came within the scope of public debate on facts and events that were already known, amounted to the exercise of Convention freedoms, and did not support or advocate the use of violence in the political sphere or indicate any wish on the applicants’ part to contribute to the illegal objectives of terrorist organisations, namely to use violence and terror for political ends; the applicants’ pre-trial detention in the context of the criminal proceedings against them, for offences carrying a heavy penalty and directly linked to their work as journalists, had amounted to an actual and effective constraint and constituted ‘interference’ with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression; the interference with the exercise of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law, as Article 100 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure required the existence of factual evidence giving rise to strong suspicion that the person concerned had committed an offence, which had not been the case here.

Tuncer Bakırhan v. Turkey (application no. 31417/19)

The case concerned the initial and continued detention of a former mayor of Siirt, an urban area in south-east Turkey, on account of his activities and statements.

The applicant had been elected in March 2014 as an opposition-party candidate. The authorities accused him of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation (PKK, Kurdistan Workers’ Party; an illegal armed organisation) and of being a member of that organisation.

The Court noted that the applicant had been imprisoned for about two years and 11 months, of which more than two years and eight months were spent in pre-trial detention. It held that there had not been sufficient reasons to order the applicant’s detention pending trial. The Court also noted that the applicant had been the mayor of a city and elected to represent an opposition party. In the Court’s view, the activities for which the applicant was criticised had been clearly political in nature. Having regard to the fundamental nature of free political debate in a democratic society, the Court could perceive no compelling reason justifying the seriousness of the measure in question. It considered that the fact of detaining the applicant, an elected representative of the people, for such a period on account of his political activities constituted an interference that was manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. It followed that the detention in question had not been necessary in a democratic society.

Moldoveanu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 53660/15)

The applicant, Nelli Moldoveanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1969 and lives in Chișinău.

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that she was remanded in custody for 40 days in 2015 following her failure to repay a debt to another person. That person had brought criminal proceedings against her for fraud, arguing that she had never intended to repay the debt and that she had known repayment would be impossible. The criminal proceedings are still pending, while the civil courts, in a final decision handed down in April 2015, found against the applicant and ordered her to pay the debt with interest.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant alleges in particular that the dispute was purely civil and that she was therefore remanded in custody in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence.

Petrenco and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 6345/16 and six other applications)

The applicants are seven Moldovan nationals, Grigore Petrenco, Alexandr Roșco, Mihail Amerberg, Oleg Buznea, Pavel Grigorciuc, Andrei Druzi and Vladimir Jurat. They were born between 1974 and 1990 and live in Chișinău, except for three of the applicants, who live in Baden-Baden (Germany), Cahul and Mereni (both in Moldova). At the time they were members and sympathisers of an opposition party, Casa noastră – Moldova.

The case concerns the applicants’ organisation of and participation in a demonstration on 6 September 2015 in central Chișinău, calling for the Prosecutor General’s resignation. They were arrested during the demonstration and released under house arrest in February 2016. The house arrest was changed to provisional release under judicial control in April 2016. The criminal proceedings against them for participating in mass disorder are still ongoing.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that the deprivation of their liberty was arbitrary and unlawful, arguing in particular that there was no evidence to support the accusation against them that their demonstration had been violent. Relying on Article 11 (right to freedom of assembly), they also complain that they were prohibited from participating in public gatherings after their provisional release in April 2016.

Kerem Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 35205/09)

The applicant, Kerem Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Batman (Turkey). The case concerns an arrest warrant against the applicant and his police custody for, among other things, being a member of a terrorist organisation (the PKK – Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation), attacking security forces using stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails and causing damage to public and private property. He was detained for approximately an hour and half in January 2007.

Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his detention was unlawful as the arrest warrant had already been withdrawn one month earlier. He also alleges under Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation) that the domestic courts dismissed his compensation claim for unlawful detention.

Maestri and Others v. Italy (nos. 20903/15, 20973/15, 20980/15 and 24505/15)

The applicants are seven Italian nationals, Cristina Maestri, Giovanni Robusti, Denis Maero, Francesco Robastro, Antonino Bedino, Celestino Giletta and Gianfranco Taricco, who were born between 1946 and 1972 and live in Viadana, Torre de Picenardi, Saluces, Moretta, Scarnafigi, Cavallerleone and Fossano respectively.

The applicants were involved with other persons in criminal proceedings concerning abuse of the milk-quota system introduced under Regulation (EEC) No. 856/84. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the appellate court failed to order a fresh hearing of the prosecution witnesses and had not heard them before overturning the acquittal verdict given in their favour at first instance.

X v. the Netherlands (application no. 72631/17)

The applicant, Ms X, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1974 and lives in Utrecht (Netherlands). The case concerns the refusal by the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal to adjourn her appellate hearing following a conviction for shoplifting, despite her being abroad for professional reasons. The hearing took place in her absence.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that she was unable to attend her appellate hearing in person.

Üçdağ v. Turkey (application no. 23314/19)

The case concerned Mr Üçdağ’s criminal conviction for disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation on account of two posts published on his Facebook account, as well as the rejection of his individual application to the Constitutional Court as being out of time. At the relevant time, Mr Üçdağ was a public official working as an imam at a local mosque.

The impugned posts had included two photographs (of individuals in uniform similar to that of PKK members and of a crowd demonstrating in a public street in front of a fire), originally shared by two other Facebook users.

The Court considered that the domestic courts’ decisions failed to provide an adequate explanation of the reasons why the impugned contents had to be interpreted as condoning, praising and encouraging the methods [using] coercion, violence or threats implemented by the PKK in the context of their publication. It held that by convicting Mr Üçdağ on charges of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation for having posted controversial contents on his Facebook account, the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an appropriate balancing exercise, in line with the criteria set out in its case-law, between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aims pursued. The Court also ruled that the Constitutional Court’s very strict interpretation of the time-limit on lodging an individual application had disproportionately interfered with the applicant’s right to an assessment of the merits of his individual application.

Galović v. Croatia (application no. 45512/11)

The case concerned the applicant’s convictions for domestic violence in several sets of minor-offence proceedings and in criminal proceedings on indictment. The applicant made complaints regarding the time he had had to prepare his defence before an appeal court session on his case, and regarding his absence from that session.

The Court found in particular that the two sets of proceedings in the applicant’s case had been part of an integrated and coherent approach to domestic violence under Croatian law. Such an integrated system had allowed the applicant’s punishment for individual acts of violence via a less severe response in the minor-offence proceedings, followed by a more serious criminal response for his pattern of behaviour.

Karrar v. Belgium (application no. 61344/16)

The case concerned criminal proceedings instituted against Mr Karrar, following which he was convicted of the murder of his two children and sentenced to life imprisonment. Before the Court, the applicant complained of the lack of impartiality of the president of the Assize Court, particularly in connection with a meeting between the president and the children’s mother in the week before the trial.

The Court found that the conduct of the president of the Assize Court could have prompted objectively justified doubts as to his objective impartiality, thereby calling into question the impartiality of the Assize Court itself in determining the criminal charge against Mr Karrar.

Brus v. Belgium (application no. 18779/15)

The applicant, Karel Brus, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1949 and lives in Zaventem

(Belgium). The case concerns criminal proceedings which resulted in the applicant – who had been involved in corruption – being sentenced to prison.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial/right of access to a lawyer) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that he was deprived of the right of access to a lawyer during his pre-trial detention and during the hearings and interviews conducted during the preliminary phase of the trial. He also alleges that the length of the proceedings in question was incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.

Willems and Gorjon v. Belgium (nos. 74209/16 and three other applications)

The applicants, Ms C. Willems and Mr Y. J. Gorjon, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1966 respectively and live in Gesves. Together with other defendants, they were tried before the Namur Criminal Court on various charges of avoiding value-added tax and were convicted in criminal proceedings.

The two initial applications (nos. 74209/16 and 75662/16) concern the alleged formalism arising from the Belgian Court of Cassation’s refusal, in a judgment of 1 June 2016, to accept appeals on points of law lodged by the applicants against the judgments convicting them. The two other applications (nos. 19431/19 and 19653/19) concern the refusal by the Court of Cassation to reopen the criminal proceedings in spite of the Belgian Government’s unilateral declaration, on the basis of which the Court had struck the applications out of its list of cases. The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).

Berlizev v. Ukraine (no. 43571/12)

The applicant, Vadym Yaroslavovych Berlizev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Zboriv (Ukraine). The case concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction on a charge of taking a bribe following alleged police incitement and planting of marked cash in his office.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the police unlawfully recorded him and that his conviction was based on unlawfully obtained evidence.

Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12, 25592/16 and 27176/16)

The applicant, Zoltán Varga, is a Slovak national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bratislava. The case concerns a surveillance operation, code-named ‘Gorilla’, carried out in 2005-06 by the Slovak Intelligence Service on the applicant, a former police officer working with an influential finance group, and a flat owned by him.

Various public figures and others were said to have been meeting in the flat to coordinate high-level corruption. Material allegedly from the operation and posted anonymously on the Internet led to a number of investigations and extensive litigation, which had widespread political implications. Mr Varga brings a number of complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence) with regard to implementation of the three warrants authorising the surveillance operation, the material collected and retained and the alleged lack of adequate safeguards.

Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 3409/10)

The applicant, Azer Gudrat oglu Ahmadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. The applicant is a journalist. He was the editor-in-chief of the opposition-oriented newspaper Azadlıq. The case concerns the tapping of his telephone in the context of a criminal investigation into the stabbing of one of his colleagues.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that the interception of his telephone conversations was unlawful. He complains in particular that the secret surveillance order did not specifically contain his name and the measure was only authorised in respect of his colleague. He also raises complaints under Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention with regard to the domestic courts’ examination of his appeal in the criminal proceedings concerning his colleague.

Volodina v. Russia (no. 2) (application no. 40419/19)

The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that the Russian authorities had failed to protect her against the repeated cyberviolence of her partner who had created fake profiles in her name, published her intimate photos, tracked her movements and sent her death threats via social media.

The Court found in particular that, despite having the legal tools available to prosecute the applicant’s partner, the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation and had not considered at any point in time what could and should have been done to protect the applicant from recurrent online harassment. The authorities had therefore failed to comply with their obligations under Article 8 to protect the applicant from severe abuse. These findings mirror those of a previous judgment concerning the same applicant, Volodina v. Russia (no. 41261/17), in which the European Court held that the Russian authorities’ response to the repeated acts of domestic violence had been manifestly inadequate.

Abdi v. Denmark (no. 41643/19)

The applicant, Mohamed Hassan Abdi, is a Somali national who was born in 1993 and lives in Ringe (Denmark). The case concerns the Danish authorities’ decision in 2018 to expel the applicant, with a permanent ban on his re-entry to the country, following his conviction for possession of a firearm.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant submits that, in their decisions, the Danish courts failed to weigh in the balance that he did not have a significant criminal past, that he had never been issued with a warning that he might be expelled and that he had strong ties to Denmark where he has lived with his family since he was four years old.

Norman v. the United Kingdom (no. 41387/17)

The applicant, Robert Norman, is a British national who was born in 1960 and lives in Dawlish

(United Kingdom). The case concerns a prison officer – the applicant – who, over a number of years, provided information to a journalist in exchange for money. The newspaper subsequently disclosed the applicant’s name to the police in the context of an investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments by newspapers to public officials. He was convicted of misconduct in public office.

Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that he could not have foreseen that his actions would lead to his criminal prosecution and that his prosecution and conviction violated his right to protection as a journalistic source.

Yartsev v. Russia (no. 16683/17)

The applicant, Dmitriy Sergeyevich Yartsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Moscow. The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for shouting the slogans ‘Stop abuse by cops’ and ‘Down with the police State’ during a labour-rights march.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that he was convicted and fined for shouting slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the lawful public event in which he had participated.

Sanchez v. France (application no. 45581/15)

The case concerned the criminal conviction of the applicant, at the time a local councillor who was standing for election to Parliament, for incitement to hatred or violence against a group of people or an individual on the grounds of their membership of a specific religion, following his failure to take prompt action in deleting comments posted by others on the wall of his Facebook account.

The Court reiterated that tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constituted the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. As a result, it could in principle be considered necessary to punish or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incited, promoted or justified hatred based on intolerance. The Court emphasised that it attached the highest importance to freedom of expression in the context of political debate and considered that very strong reasons were required to justify restrictions on political speech and that in the run-up to an election, opinions and information of all kinds should be permitted to circulate freely. In the specific circumstances of the case, however, the Court found that the domestic courts’ decision to convict the applicant on account of his failure to take prompt action in deleting the clearly unlawful comments posted by others on the wall of his Facebook account, which was used in connection with his election campaign, had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons linked to his lack of vigilance and responsiveness. The interference in question could thus be seen as ‘necessary in a democratic society’ and there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Z.B. v. France (application no. 46883/15)

The case concerned the conviction of Z.B. for glorification of wilful killing on account of slogans (‘I am a bomb’ and ‘Jihad, born on 11 September’) on a T-shirt he had given his nephew as a present for his third birthday. The boy had then worn the T-shirt to nursery school. Before the domestic courts and the European Court the applicant had claimed that the slogans were supposed to be humorous in tone.

The Court reiterated that humorous speech or forms of expression used for humorous effect were protected by Article 10 of the Convention provided that they remained within the limits permitted under that provision. The right to humour was not unlimited and anyone relying on the right to freedom of expression had to assume ‘duties and responsibilities’. The Court emphasised that it could not ignore the importance and weight of the general context in this case. Even though over 11 years had elapsed since the events of 11 September 2001, by the time of the facts of the present case, it was nevertheless noteworthy that shortly before there had been other terrorist attacks, which had notably caused the death of three children in a school. The Court also stated that the fact that the applicant had no links with a terrorist group and had not espoused a terrorist ideology could not detract from the significance of the offending message. In the specific circumstances of the case, the Court – which noted that the three-year-old, as the unwitting bearer of the message, had been instrumentalised – found that the reasons given by the domestic courts to convict the applicant, relying on the need to prevent glorification of mass violence, appeared both ‘relevant’ and ‘sufficient’ to justify the interference in question. It further noted that the sanction imposed on the applicant (fine and suspended prison sentence) had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The impugned interference could thus be regarded as necessary in a democratic society and there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (application nos. 50705/11, 11340/12, 26221/12, 71694/12, 44845/15, 17238/16 and 63214/16)

The case concerned the seizure of property belonging to the applicants believed to be the proceeds of crime.

The Court found in particular that the domestic courts in three of the cases had examined the issues thoroughly and balanced the rights of the applicants with the public good. However, in the cases where it found a violation, the Court held that the domestic courts had failed to establish a link between the goods forfeited and criminal activity or between the value of the property and the difference between income and expenditure found. The ordering of forfeiture had thus been disproportionate. There are approximately 40 similar applications pending before the Court.

Y.B. v. Russia (no. 71155/17)

The applicant, Mr Y.B., is a French national who was born in 1978 and lives in France. The case concerns his complaint that he was unable to appeal against his conviction in Russia for production and distribution of pornography and child pornography and for child molestation. He was convicted in his absence and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.

Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention, the applicant complains that the Russian courts refused to accept and examine his statement of appeal, noting that conviction in absentia was not amenable to appeal.

Milošević v. Croatia (application no. 12022/16)

The applicant, Milan Milošević, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1966 and lives in Bosanski Brod (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The case concerns the proceedings following heating oil – which was not legally meant for use as vehicle fuel – being found in a lorry owned by the applicant in Vukovar (Croatia). Mr Milošević was found guilty of a minor offence and fined 4,800 Croatian kunas (HRK) for illegal use of heating oil. Later he was ordered to pay HRK 123,000 in respect of unpaid duties for the amount of heating oil used.

Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), the applicant complains that he had been punished twice – via the minor offence conviction and the imposition of excise duty – for the same set of facts.

Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland (no. 12951/18)

The applicant, Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1944 and lives in Reykjavik. The case concerns proceedings against the applicant for tax-code violations. Following an audit, he had to pay a tax surcharge. He was later convicted of major tax offences and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and a fine of 84,000 euros.

Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), the applicant complains that he had been punished twice – via the tax surcharge and the criminal conviction – for the same set of facts.