1. Human trafficking and forced labour

The Court reiterated that human trafficking fell within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention and that, according to Article 4 (a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, exploitation through labour was one aspect of human trafficking.

The Court noted that the domestic courts had interpreted and applied the concept of trafficking in human beings in a very restrictive manner, by more or less identifying it with servitude. However, the applicants’ situation did not amount to servitude. The fundamental distinguishing feature between servitude and forced or compulsory labour lay in the victims’ feeling that their condition was permanent and that the situation was unlikely to change. In the present case, the applicants could not have experienced this feeling, in that they were all seasonal workers. The facts at issue, and particularly the applicants’ working conditions, showed clearly that they amounted to human trafficking and forced labour, and corresponded to the definition of trafficking in human beings set out in Article 3a of the “Palermo Protocol” and Article 4 of the Council of Europe’s Anti-Trafficking Convention. That being so, the Court concluded that the applicants’ situation fell within the scope of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention in so far as it concerned human trafficking and forced labour.

2. The State’s obligations under Article 4 § 2

The States must put in place a legislative and administrative framework that prohibits and punishes forced or compulsory labour, servitude and slavery. Greece had largely complied with that obligation, in particular by ratifying the Palermo Protocol and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

The States were required to adopt a series of measures to prevent trafficking and protect the rights of victims. In the present case, the Court noted that well before the events of 17 April 2013, the authorities had been aware of the situation in the Manolada strawberry plantations, their attention having been drawn to it by reports and press articles. Debates had been held in Parliament and three ministers had ordered inspections and the drafting of legislative texts aimed at improving the migrants’ situation. However, this mobilisation had not yielded any tangible results. In April 2008 the Ombudsman’s Office had alerted several ministers and State bodies, as well as the public prosecutor’s office, recommending that a series of measures be adopted. However, the authorities’ reaction had been on an ad hoc basis, and they had not, at least until 2013, provided a general solution to the problems faced by the Manolada migrant workers. Furthermore, the Amaliada police station seemed to have been aware of the employers’ refusal to pay the applicants’ wages, as one of its police officers had given evidence to the assize court that workers from the farm had come to the police station to complain about this refusal. In consequence, the Court considered that the operational measures taken by the authorities had not been sufficient to prevent human trafficking and to protect the applicants from the treatment to which they were being subjected.

The States had to ensure that the investigation and judicial proceedings were effective. In cases involving exploitation, the authorities had to carry out an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. They had to act of their own motion once the matter had come to their attention.

With regard to the applicants who did not take part in the procedure before the assize court:

They had filed a complaint on 8 May 2013, claiming that they had been employed on the farm belonging to T.A. and N.V. in conditions of human trafficking and forced labour, and alleging that they had been present at the scene of the incident on 17 April 2013 in order to demand their unpaid wages.

Their complaint was dismissed, as the Amaliada prosecutor considered, among other points, that had they really been victims, they would have reported the matter to the police authorities on 17 April 2013 rather than waiting until 8 May 2013. The Court considered that by omitting to verify whether the allegations by this group of applicants were well-founded, the prosecutor had not complied with his obligation to carry out an investigation, and that in dismissing their request on the grounds that they had delayed in complaining to the police, the prosecutor had breached the regulatory framework governing trafficking in human beings. Indeed, Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings provided for a “recovery and reflection period” of at least 30 days, so that the person concerned could recover and escape the influence of traffickers and take an informed decision on cooperating with the competent authorities. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention with regard to the procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation.

With regard to the applicants who took part in the proceedings before the assize court:

The Patras Assize Court acquitted the defendants of the charge of trafficking in human beings, finding, in particular, that it had not been absolutely impossible for the workers to protect themselves and that their freedom of movement had not been compromised in that they had been free to leave their jobs. The Court considered that a restriction on freedom of movement was not a condition sine qua non for classifying a situation as forced labour or even human trafficking. A trafficking situation could exist in spite of the victim’s freedom of movement. Moreover, the Patras Assize Court had acquitted the defendants of the charge of human trafficking and had converted the prison sentence imposed on the two convicted individuals for serious bodily harm into a financial penalty of EUR 5 per day of imprisonment. The public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had refused to appeal on points of law against the acquittal judgment. The assize court had ordered T.A. and one of the armed guards to pay a total amount of EUR 1,500, or EUR 43 per injured worker, for the prejudice sustained. Yet Article 15 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings required the Contracting States, including Greece, to provide for the right of victims to obtain compensation from the persons who committed the offence, and, among other measures, to create a compensation fund for victims. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention as regards the State’s procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the situation of human trafficking and forced labour complained of by the applicants and to provide effective judicial proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention on account of the State’s failure to fulfill its positive obligations under that provision, namely to prevent the human trafficking situation complained of, to protect the victims, to conduct an effective investigation into the offences and to punish those responsible for the trafficking.