|
The applicants, three Russian nationals, were trafficked to Greece between June and October 2003. The applicants, having obtained visas from the Consulate General of Greece in Moscow, allege that the Consulate employees had been bribed by the traffickers to issue the visas in question. In September 2003, the third applicant was arrested by the Greek police on charges of prostitution. The applicant, upon informing the Greek police that she had been forced to work as a prostitute, was recognized as a ‘victim of human trafficking’ and, in October 2003, criminal proceedings were brought against three individuals. Two of these individuals were sentenced to unsuspended terms of five years and ten month’s imprisonment and ordered to pay 30 EUR to the applicant, for the crimes of criminal conspiracy, living on the earnings of prostitution and human trafficking by the Thessaloniki Court of Appeals in June 2011. The third individual in this case was acquitted. The First and Second Applicants complained to the Ermoupoli police that they were the victims of human trafficking in December 2003, identifying three individuals as their traffickers. An investigation was thus opened, and criminal charges were brought against these three individuals. The Athenian Criminal Court sentenced two of these individuals to prison terms for forgery, use of forged documents and falsification of certificates in March 2010, acquitting two other persons for the same charges. The convicted had their sentences commuted to a 10 EUR pecuniary penalty for each day of detention. In 2013, two individuals were acquitted on charges of forming a criminal organization and human trafficking by the same court. Furthermore, in May 2005, the applicants stated to the public prosecutor responsible for cases of human trafficking that the documents used to obtain the applicant’s visas at the Consulate General of Greece in Moscow contained false information, further accusing the Consulate employees and the hospitality companies involved of facilitating the transfer of the applicants to Greece. Criminal proceedings for human trafficking were subsequently brought against three consular employees, among others. These proceedings for human trafficking against two consular employees were found to be time-barred, however, by the Indictments Division of the Criminal Court in February 2016, and the proceedings against the third consular employee was dismissed due to a lack of substantial evidence of the offence in question by the same court. The applicants complained to the European Court of Human Rights in June 2010, that the Greek authorities had failed in their obligation to criminalise and prosecute human trafficking. The applicants complained that, in so doing, the Greek State had failed its obligations under Article 4 ECHR on the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. |
Greece
Russian FederationThe applicants alleged that the Greek authorities had failed in their obligation to prevent human trafficking under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants allege inter alia that the Greek legislative framework, as it existed in 2002, was insufficient for the effective criminalization of human trafficking, as demonstrated by the time-barring of three of the proceedings, the listing of human trafficking as a lesser offence and the absence of a specific crime for the trafficking of persons for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. The applicants further allege that the failure of the Greek state to effectively prosecute those Greek officials who had facilitated their trafficking.
|
Regarding the existence of an appropriate legal framework for the prevention of human trafficking under Article 4 ECHR, the Court held that the applicable legislation prior to the entry into force of Law 3064/2002 in October 2002 was insufficient. The Court held that the legislation applicable to issue of visas to the applicant, Article 351 of the Criminal Code, was insufficient, prior to its amendment in October 2002. Forced position had been classified, prior to 2002, by the Greek Criminal Code as a lesser indictable offence, carry a punishment of one to three years imprisonment, and trafficking in persons for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation was not a separate offence, which in turn led the Indictments Division of the Athens Criminal Court to rule that the proceedings against two of the accused as time-barred. As such, the Court found that the legal framework in place in Greece at the material time was in violation of Article 4 ECHR, as it was insufficient to effectively prevent human trafficking. The Court noted, however, that the Greek Criminal Code was amended on the 15 October 2002 to expressly prohibit trafficking in persons for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation and classify trafficking in persons as a serious crime. The Court further noted that the Greek authorities had taken operational measures to protect the applicant victims of human trafficking, and the enforcement orders issued for their expulsion from the Greek state had been suspended. The Court held that the length of the criminal proceedings in the case, totaling seven years and nine months for one of the accused, and 9 years and three months for two other accused, were demonstrative of the failure of the authorities to deal with the case in a sufficiently diligent manner. proceedings had lasted for seven years and nine months in the case of one of the applicants. The authorities had therefore not dealt with the case with the requisite level of diligence. This was further evidenced by the suspension of the proceedings against a fourth suspect fifteen years after proceedings were brought. The Court further found that the Greek authorities had failed in their duty to act with special diligence in the investigation of the issuance of visas to the applicants and the involvement of public officials in human-trafficking networks. This is due also to the fact that the offences of forgery and use of forged documents had become time-barred before the investigation had concluded. The Court found that these considerations were demonstrative of the failure of the competent authorities to deal with the applicants’ case with the requisite level of diligence required under Article 4 ECHR.
|
Article 4: Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
European Court of Human Rights
