A legitimate representative of a security company (security services provider) had an entire arsenal in his home when it was discovered by the EL.AS. imposed a fine of 200,000 euros, which was annulled in the first instance, but the Council of State (State Council) had a contrary opinion (as did the Court of Appeal) and upheld the decision of the fine.
In June 2006, a license was obtained and subsequently renewed. In September 2014, the Hellenic Police carried out an inspection at the house of the company’s legal representative, from which it was found that there were several weapons, cartridges, etc., subject to the legislation (Law 2168/1993) on weapons, ammunition, and explosives.
In detail, a submachine gun with a folding stock, various rifles (including one of Serbian manufacture), a large number of cartridges of various calibers, a scope with a base, knives, etc. were found and the Staff of the Headquarters of the H.A.S. imposed an administrative fine of 200,000 euros.
The representative of the company security appealed to the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance which vindicated him because the Joint Ministerial Decision (KYA) which provides in such cases for a fixed fine of 200,000 euros and not a variable one on a case-by-case basis (i.e. to be imposed depending on the findings of the war material found, etc.) is invalid and unenforceable. At the same time, the magistrates referred the case to the EL.AS. to impose a fine of 20,000 to 200,000 euros.
The EL.AS. appealed against the first instance decision. The Court of Appeal ruled that it is not contrary to the constitutional principle of proportionality of sanctions to provide for the imposition of an inflexible fine, rather than the imposition of a fine that varies according to the degree of culpability, the circumstances, the gravity of each violation, and annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance.
The case was taken to the Supreme Court by the company’s representative, following an appeal filed by the company’s representative. The Fourth Chamber, chaired by Vice President Spyridoula Chrysikopoulou and the rapporteur was Ms. Dimitra Mavropodis, the rapporteur, rejected the appeal. It was held that the contested regulation was adopted for reasons of public interest which relate to “ensuring the operation of private security service providers and the lawful exercise of their professional activity which, by the nature of the services provided, involves a risk to important legal interests, such as human life, safety and property of persons”.
Further, the State advisers ruled that the KYA does not violate the constitutional principle of proportionality.
