The ECHR condemned Greece in the Noor case for 1 and 2.1 tons of heroin: Marinakis won the dispute over the presumption of innocence

European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor Vangelis Marinakis in the Noor 1 case, recognizing the violation of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Strasbourg reviewed not the heroin smuggling itself and not a question of criminal liability on the merits, but actions of the Greek authorities and the public campaign launched against the shipowner and owner of the Olympiacos football club during the government Alexis Tsipras.

We are talking about a case that for more than ten years remains one of the darkest and most politically toxic in modern Greek history: tanker Noor 1, 2.1 tons of heroin, investigation of international drug trafficking, accusations against big business, pressure on witnesses, leaks, public statements by ministers and numerous deaths of people whose names somehow cropped up around this story.

The main thing is several points

• The ECtHR examined the complaints of Vangelis Marinakis against Greece in the case Marinakis v. Greece.
• The court found a violation of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
• Strasbourg pointed to public statements and unofficial materials circulated during the Noor 1 investigation.
• In 2014, a heroin shipment weighing approximately 2.1 tonstransported on the tanker Noor 1 under the flag of Togo.
• In 2018, Marinakis faced serious charges, which he denied, calling the case a politically motivated campaign.
• The ECHR did not establish who organized the drug trafficking and did not review the criminal case on its merits.
• The court assessed the behavior of the state, which, in essence, publicly described the person as guilty before the completion of the procedure provided for by law.

Table of contents

• What the ECHR decided
• What happened to the tanker Noor 1
• What charges were brought against Marinakis?
• Tsipras campaign
• Why the presumption of innocence is more important than political shows
• Deaths and the dark side of Noor 1
• Editorial comment

What the European Court of Human Rights decided

The ECHR examined the case Marinakis v. Greececombining complaints No. 25916/18 and No. 37429/18. The court concluded that the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence were violated in relation to Marinakis.

The decision centered on unofficial documents circulated by then-Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’ press office, as well as public statements by members of the government. The submissions and speeches effectively portrayed Marinakis as a criminal before the court could make a final decision.

The ECHR did not acquit or accuse Marinakis of drug smuggling. The court does not replace a criminal investigation and does not establish who was behind the heroin shipment. He assessed something else: whether the government has the right to publicly turn a suspect into an already convicted person, using government communication channels, leaks and political statements.

Strasbourg’s answer turned out to be unequivocal: no, it does not.

Noor 1: 2.1 tons of heroin in Piraeus

In June 2014, the Greek coast guard detained a tanker in Piraeus Noor 1flying the flag of Togo. Approximately 2.1 tons of heroin.

The case received international resonance. The investigation considered the cargo to be one of the largest shipments of heroin intercepted in Europe. According to investigations and publications of that period, part of the cargo could have been unloaded before the ship was detained. We were talking about another 900 kilograms, which, according to investigators, managed to go into criminal channels.

Noor 1 itself has become a symbol of how Greece found itself at the intersection of drug trafficking routes between the Middle East, Turkey, the Balkans and the European market. But later another story grew around this criminal case: a political one.

What charges were brought against Marinakis?

In 2018, the Piraeus prosecutor’s office brought charges against Vangelis Marinakis related to possible financing, storage, transportation and distribution of drugs, as well as alleged participation in a criminal organization.

Marinakis categorically denied involvement in heroin smuggling and stated that the criminal case was part of a political campaign against him. At that time, he was no longer just a wealthy shipowner: behind him were media assets, influence in the shipping industry, the Olympiacos football club and a significant weight in Greek public life.

That is why Noor 1 quickly ceased to be just a criminal case. It turned into an arena where the interests of the investigation, the government, the opposition, football structures, business, the media and law enforcement agencies intersected. In Greece, such a mixture almost never remains purely legal. It instantly turns into a war of all against all, only with lawyers instead of artillery.

Tsipras campaign

The ECHR decision paid special attention to the actions of representatives of the government of Alexis Tsipras. The court was critical of the practice of disseminating unofficial materials from the Prime Minister’s Office, public statements of the then Minister of Defense Panos Kammenos and Minister of Justice Stavros Kontonis.

Extremely heavy accusations and characterizations were heard in the public space, which, in essence, replaced the work of the court with a political verdict. The man against whom proceedings were still ongoing was already described as a “drug trafficker” and even compared to Escobar.

Strasbourg pointed out a fundamental thing: the state cannot first start the media machine, declare a person guilty, use the prime minister’s press service as a tool of pressure, and then pretend that the court is operating in a sterile vacuum.

Justice does not exist separately from the information environment. When ministers, bureaucrats and anonymous “non-papers” create an image of the perpetrator, they influence not only public opinion, but also the very possibility of a fair trial.

Why the presumption of innocence is more important than political shows

Presumption of innocence especially inconvenient in high-profile cases. It prevents politicians from receiving applause, prevents television talk shows from selling emotions, and prevents ministers from building a career on big names. But that is precisely why it is needed.

The state has the right to investigate even the most serious suspicions. It is obliged to investigate tons of heroin, international drug trafficking, the financing of criminal schemes and possible connections between business and crime. But the right to investigate does not give the authorities the right to declare a person a criminal in advance.

The ECtHR decision in the Marinakis case recalls: In a democratic state, the presumption of innocence applies not to convenient people, but primarily to inconvenient people. For those who are hated by politicians. For those who are conveniently made into symbols of evil. For those against whom hundreds of headlines have already been written.

Deaths and the dark side of Noor 1

The Noor 1 case was accompanied by reports of deaths and murders of people who were involved in the investigation, business chains, cargo logistics or the information field around drug trafficking. Journalistic investigations have cited dozens of such episodes.

In particular, international publications indicated at least 17 deadwhose stories in one way or another intersected with the Noor 1 case. However, it is important to separate two things: the presence of deaths around the case and the legally proven connection of each specific case with drug trafficking or specific defendants.

The investigation into a number of episodes was conducted separately, the circumstances of some deaths remained controversial, and some of the allegations lived for years in the zone between investigative journalism, crime reporting and political struggle.

But the general fact remains: Noor 1 was not just a case of heroin cargo. It was a story that left behind too much fear, too many dead and too many people who benefited for the final picture to emerge.

Editorial comment

The ECHR decision in the Marinakis case does not negate the seriousness of drug trafficking crimes. It cancels the illusion that the government can fight crime using political methods.

Greece learned a painful but useful lesson. Citizens cannot be expected to respect justice if the government itself is handing out convictions through tweets, leaks, and “soft documents.” It is impossible to build a state of law when the prime minister’s press service actually works as a department of political compromising evidence.

The story of Noor 1 showed how easily a criminal case can be spoiled by political passion. The authorities wanted to do more than just investigate. She needed a public enemy. And when the state begins to choose enemies before the court establishes the facts, it inevitably deals a blow not only to a specific person, but also to its own justice system.

Tons of heroin, big names, courts, football, shipping, ministries and corpses around the case – all this does not change one basic rule: guilt is determined by the court, and not by a minister on air, not by the government press service, and not by an anonymous folder leaked in the editorial office.

Strasbourg reminded Athens of something that in a normal state should not require a reminder at all.

Editorial comment

The presumption of innocence and the mistakes of the Greek political leadership are one thing. But the two-plus tons of heroin delivered to Piraeus by Noor 1 are something completely different.

The ECtHR rightly reminded the Greek authorities that The government has no right to assign culprits through press offices, ministerial tweets and convenient media leaks. The authorities under Alexis Tsipras really made mistakes, who turned a criminal case into a political show and may have seriously complicated the search for truth.

But these mistakes do not change the original reality: a huge shipment of heroin arrived in Greece. The investigation established the fact of smuggling, and sentences were passed on other defendants in the case. Too many questions remained for years around the cargo, its transportation, money, intermediaries and people associated with the investigation.

Another circumstance looks especially unpleasant: journalistic investigations reported numerous deaths of people whose names or biographies in one way or another intersected with the story of Noor 1. Of course, not every death automatically means the elimination of a witness. People die, criminal cases last for years, and sometimes coincidences really are coincidences.

But when so many participants, intermediaries and potential carriers of information disappear around the case of tons of heroin, society has the right to ask: why, years later, is he left with no answers, but only an ever-longer list of dead ones, contradictions and unsaid things?

Billionaires with strong lawyers, influential connections and resources almost always have more power to defend themselves than ordinary people. This is not proof of anyone’s guilt. But there is no reason to pretend that money, politics and influence never change the trajectory of investigations.

The final picture of Noor 1 may not appear now. Perhaps in years, when political obligations, fears, personal dependencies and the need to protect someone’s surnames disappear. In the meantime, the case remains an example of how the state can ruin even an investigation in which the initial smell was so heavy that it cannot be covered up by any press releases.

Source link