November 2025 – Decision of the Second Summary Court of Athens – Acquittal for the act of illegal trade, accepting the argument regarding the application of the ne bis in idem principle and judicial remission of the sentence under Article 104 B of the Penal Code, and imposing a sentence of 6 months for the act of violence against police officers (officers under the terms of the law), the mitigating circumstance of previous good character being accepted, taking into account the circumstances of Article 79(3) of the Penal Code when determining the sentence

Our client was caught red-handed engaging in outdoor trade, selling non-edible handicraft products without a license from the competent authority. Subsequently, during the inspection, her arrest, and her transfer to the nearby police station, she allegedly used violence to force employees to neglect their legal duties, and more specifically, she allegedly attacked them with her hands and feet, pushing them violently, in order to prevent them from performing the above legal actions.

She was subsequently prosecuted for the offences under Article 64 of Law 4849/2021 and Article 163 of the Penal Code. At the same time, for the first act, she was imposed an administrative fine, pursuant to the report of violation of Article 62 of Law 4849/2021, which was drawn up against her on the same day.

With regard to the first act, it was argued that the criminal prosecution should be declared inadmissible, in accordance with the ne bis in idem principle, according to which a defendant cannot be punished twice for the same act. Given that the defendant was fined, which acts as a “hidden penalty,” the imposition of a second penalty of a criminal nature in the context of criminal proceedings would lead to a violation of the above legal principle.

In addition, as a more specific expression of the above principle, a separate claim was made for judicial remission of the penalty under Article 104 B of the Penal Code, which is equivalent to acquittal, because the damage caused was particularly minor and, at the same time, the defendant, having been acquitted, was not subject to any penalty. 104 B of the Penal Code, which is equivalent to acquittal, because the damage caused was particularly minor and, at the same time, the defendant was seriously affected by the result of her action, given that, despite her dire financial situation, she was also imposed an administrative fine and fully remedied the offense by immediately paying the fine imposed on her.

As for the second act, it was argued that the subjective element was not fulfilled, because the defendant’s intention was not to coerce the employees into omitting a lawful act, but her behavior was a result of the psychological condition she suffers from, which is proven by documents, as she herself, due to the problems she faces, fell into a state of fear and anxiety.

In addition, the independent claim of incapacity for attribution, or reduced capacity for attribution, was raised under Articles 34 and 36 of the Penal Code.

From all the evidence, the documents submitted, the testimony of the defense witness, and the defendant’s apology, it was proven that she had already appeared remorseful during the preliminary proceedings, apologizing, as she did before the Court, that her behavior was an isolated incident, and that she immediately paid the fine imposed on her.

Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor proposed the acquittal of the defendant for the first offense, accepting our independent arguments regarding the application of the ne bis in idem principle and the remission of the sentence, and proposed the conviction of the defendant for the second offense, rejecting the independent argument regarding incapacity for criminal responsibility, or diminished capacity for criminal responsibility, with regard to the second act. The defense agreed with the Public Prosecutor’s proposal for the first act and requested the acquittal of the defendant for the second act. Following this, the Court acquitted the defendant of the first act and found her guilty of the second act. At the same time, it accepted the separate claim of mitigating circumstances under Article Subsequently, as proposed by the Public Prosecutor, taking into account the circumstances of the case in question when determining the sentence, the Court imposed a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment on the defendant for the second act. Subsequently, as proposed by the Public Prosecutor, taking into account the circumstances of the case in question when determining the sentence and, in particular, the character and attitude of the defendant, the Court imposed the minimum appealable sentence of 6 months, even though the sentence range is up to three years, suspending it for three years.