5.  The applicants, Bangladeshi migrants living in Greece without a work permit, were recruited on different dates between October 2012 and February 2013 in Athens and other places, to work on the region’s biggest strawberry farm, at Manolada, a village of two thousand inhabitants in the regional district of Elis, in the western part of the Peloponnese peninsula. In that area there are a number of production units, of various sizes, specialising in the intensive cultivation of strawberries. Exports account for 70% of the local production, which covers 90% of the Greek market. Most of the workers are irregular migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some are employed on the farms permanently and others only on a seasonal basis. 6.  The production unit in question was run by T.A. and N.V., the applicants’ employers.
The applicants were among a total of 150 workers divided into three teams, each one headed by a Bangladeshi national who reported to T.A. 7.  The workers had been promised a wage of 22 euros (EUR) for seven hours’ work and three euros for each hour of overtime, with three euros per day deducted for food. They worked in greenhouses every day from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. picking strawberries under the supervision of armed guards employed by T.A. They lived in makeshift shacks made of cardboard, nylon and bamboo, without toilets or running water. According to them, their employers had warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work for them. 8.  On three occasions – in late February 2013, mid-March 2013 and on 15 April 2013 – the workers went on strike demanding payment of their unpaid wages, but without success.
On 17 April 2013 the employers recruited other Bangladeshi migrants to work in the fields. Fearing that they would not be paid, between one hundred and one hundred and fifty workers from the 2012-2013 season who worked in the fields started moving towards the two employers, who were on the spot, in order to demand their wages. One of the armed guards then opened fire against the workers, seriously injuring thirty of them, including twenty-one of the applicants (listed under numbers 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 38, 39 and 42). The wounded were taken to hospital and were subsequently questioned by police. 9.  On 18 and 19 April 2013 the police arrested N.V. and T.A., together with the guard who had fired the shots and another armed overseer. During the preliminary investigation by the local police, a number of other Bangladeshis, including some who had worked with the suspects, were used as interpreters. 10.  On 19 April 2013 the Amaliada public prosecutor charged the four suspects with attempted murder and other offences, and also, in response to a request from the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, with human trafficking under Article 323A of the Criminal Code. The charge of attempted murder was subsequently reclassified as grievous bodily harm. 11.  On 22 April 2013 the Amaliada public prosecutor acknowledged that thirty-five workers – including four team-leaders –, who had all been injured during the incident, were victims of human trafficking, thus making them lawful residents under section 12 of Law no. 3064/2002 (on the repression of human trafficking, crimes against sexual freedom, child pornography, and more generally sexual exploitation). 12.  On 8 May 2013 one hundred and twenty other workers, including the twenty-one applicants who had not been injured (listed under numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41), applied to the Amaliada public prosecutor for charges of human trafficking, attempted murder and assault, in respect of them also, to be brought against the four defendants. They stated that they had been employed on the farm run by T.A. and N.V. in conditions of human trafficking and forced labour and that they were part of the group which had come under fire. Relying on the Additional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, known as the “Palermo Protocol”, of December 2000 (“to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons”), they asked the public prosecutor to bring charges under Article 323A of the Criminal Code against their employers, accusing them of exploiting them in a work-related context. They further alleged that, on 17 April 2013, they had also been present at the scene of the incident and that they had gone there to demand their unpaid wages, with the result that they were also victims of the offences committed against the other thirty-five complainants. 13.  The police questioned each of the above-mentioned twenty-one applicants, who signed a record containing their statements, which had been given under oath and were accompanied by their photos, and they forwarded the statements to the public prosecutor. 14.  In decision 26/2014 of 4 August 2014, the Amaliada public prosecutor rejected the application of the one hundred and twenty workers. He emphasised that those workers had been sought in order to give testimony during the preliminary investigation and that only one hundred and two of them had been traced and interviewed (including the twenty-one applicants mentioned in paragraph 12 above). He noted that it transpired from their statements and other material in the file that their allegations did not correspond to the reality. He explained that if they had really been the victims of the offences complained of, they would have gone to the police immediately on 17 April 2013, like the thirty-five other workers had done, and would not have waited until 8 May 2013. In his view, the claim that the complainants had been afraid and had left their huts was not credible because they had been close to the scene of the incident and, when the police arrived, they could have returned to make their complaints known. He further noted that only four out of the hundred and two complainants interviewed had stated they had been injured and that, unlike the thirty-five workers mentioned above, none of those four workers had gone to hospital. Lastly, he observed that all the complainants had stated that they had made statements to the police after learning that they would receive residence permits as victims of human trafficking. 15.  On 28 January 2015 the public prosecutor at Patras Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the one hundred and twenty workers against decision no. 26/2014 on the grounds that the material in the case file did not substantiate their allegations and that they had sought to present themselves as victims of human trafficking in order to obtain residence permits (decision no. 3/2015). 16.  The accused were committed to stand trial in Patras Assize Court. Only N.V. was charged with committing the offence of human trafficking. The three other defendants, namely T.A. and the two armed overseers, were charged with aiding and abetting that offence. The hearings began on 6 June 2014 and ended on 30 July 2014. The thirty-five workers mentioned above joined the proceedings as civil parties and were represented by their lawyers V. Kerasiotis and M. Karabeïdis, whose fees were paid by the Greek Council for Refugees and the Hellenic League for Human Rights. 17.  In his oral submissions the public prosecutor pointed out that the applicants who had been injured in the incident had been living and working in Greece without any permit, at the mercy of networks which exploited human beings and in conditions which enabled them to be characterised as victims of human trafficking. In his view both the material element and the mental element of this offence were made out in the present case. 18.  The public prosecutor further emphasised that exploitation in a labour context was part of the notion of exploitation provided for in European and other international law instruments as a means of committing the offence of human trafficking. He indicated that Article 4 of the Convention and Article 22 of the Greek Constitution prohibited forced or compulsory labour. He explained that the notion of exploitation through work included all acts which constituted a breach of employment law, such as the provisions concerning working hours, working conditions and workers’ insurance. In his view, that form of exploitation also obtained through the performance of work for the benefit of the offender himself. 19.  Referring to the facts of the case, the public prosecutor explained that the employer, N.V., had not paid the workers for six months, that he had only paid them a very small sum for food, deducted from their wages, and had promised to pay the rest later. He observed as follows: that the defendants were unscrupulous and imposed themselves by making threats and carrying weapons; the workers laboured in extreme physical conditions, had to work long hours and were constantly humiliated; on 17 April 2013, N.V. had informed the workers that he would not pay them and would kill them, with the help of his co-accused, if they did not carry on working for him; as the workers had not given in to the threats, he had told them to leave and said that he would take on another team in their place and that he would burn down their huts if they refused to leave. He lastly noted that, when he recruited them, N.V. had promised the complainants makeshift shelters and a daily wage of EUR 22 – which in his view was the only solution for the victims to be sure of a means of subsistence – and that N.V. had thus succeeded, at that point, in obtaining their consent in order to be able to exploit them subsequently. 20.  The public prosecutor asserted that the incident of 17 April 2013 was illustrative of a situation of over-exploitation and barbaric treatment to which the major landowners in the region had subjected the migrant workers. He took the view that the incident had been a barbaric and armed aggression by Greek employers against the migrants, conjuring up images of a “southern slave-trade” which had no place in Greece. 21.  At the hearing, one of the witnesses, an officer from the police station of Amaliada, stated that one or two days before the incident of 17 April 2013 some workers had gone to the police station to complain that their employers had refused to pay them their wages and that one of his colleagues had subsequently had a telephone conversation with N.V. on this subject. 22.  In a judgment of 30 July 2014, the Assize Court acquitted the four defendants on the charge of trafficking in human beings, on the ground that the material element of the offence was not made out in the present case. It convicted one of the armed guards and T.A. of grievous bodily harm and unlawful use of firearms, sentencing them to prison for terms of fourteen years and seven months and eight years and seven months, respectively. As regards the overseer who had been responsible for the shots, it took the view that he had not intended to kill those who were attacked in the incident and that he had been trying to make them move away so that the newly recruited workers would not be approached by them. As to N.V., it acquitted him on the ground that it had not been established that he was one of the workers’ employers (and therefore that he was obliged to pay them their wages) or that he had been involved as an instigator of the armed attack against them. The Assize Court commuted their prison sentences to a financial penalty of 5 euros per day of detention. It also ordered the two convicted men to pay the sum of EUR 1,500 to the thirty-five workers who were recognised as victims (about EUR 43 per person). 23.  The Assize Court noted that the workers’ conditions of employment had provided that they would receive: EUR 22 for seven hours of work and EUR 3 for each additional hour; food, of which the cost would be deducted from their wages; and materials for the construction of electrified huts next to their plantations, at their employers’ expense, to satisfy their basic accommodation needs – while allowing them the option of living elsewhere in the region. It noted that these conditions had been brought to the knowledge of the workers by their fellow countrymen who were team-leaders. 24.  The Assize Court thus observed that the workers had been informed of their conditions of employment and that they had accepted them after finding them satisfactory. As to the amount of the wages, it found that this was the usual amount paid by the other producers in the region and the workers had not been obliged to accept it. In the court’s view, the information provided to the workers by their team-leaders and their compatriots working for other employers about the reliable payment of wages constituted a major factor in the choice of T.A. as employer. The Assize Court further noted that, until the end of February 2013, the workers had not made any complaint about their employer, whether concerning his conduct or the payment of wages, and they had only started to complain at the end of February or the beginning of March 2013 about a delay in payment. 25.  Moreover, the Assize Court rejected the workers’ allegations that they had not received any wages and had been subjected to a threatening and intimidating attitude, on the part of the defendants, throughout the duration of their work, on the following grounds: those allegations had been expressed for the first time at the hearing, and not at the stage of the preliminary enquiries or investigation; certain intimidating acts had led the complainants to leave their place of work; and the description of these acts was particularly imprecise and vague. The Assize Court also noted that it transpired from the testimony of the workers that, during their free time, they were able to move freely around the region, do their shopping in shops which operated by agreement with the defendants, play cricket and take part in an association set up by their compatriots. It added that it had not been shown that T.A. had, under false pretences and by means of promises, coerced the workers into agreeing to work for him by taking advantage of their situation of vulnerability, especially as it found that they were not in such a situation. 26.  The Assize Court took the view that it had also been shown that the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship and its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers. On that point, it explained that the conditions had not led the complainants to live in a state of exclusion from the outside world, without any possibility for them to abandon this relationship and look for another job. It further noted that the workers had been in a position to negotiate their conditions of employment at the time of their recruitment and that their unlawful presence in Greece had not been used by their employers as a means of coercion to force them to continue working. 27.  The Assize Court indicated that, for the notion of vulnerability to be constituted, the victim had to be in a state of impoverishment such that his refusal to submit to the offender would appear absurd; in other words the victim had to be in a state of absolute weakness preventing him from protecting himself. It added that the victim would be exploited, as a result of his vulnerability, if he unconditionally submitted himself to the offender and was cut off from the outside world, which in the court’s view was not the case here since: (a) the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship, and (b) its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers, such that the workers might be cut off from the outside world and find it impossible to withdraw from the employment relationship and find another job. The Assize Court further observed that most of the workers had stated that they would have continued to work for their employers had they been paid their wages. 28.  Lastly, as to the workers’ allegation that they had received death threats from the defendants – an allegation that it did not accept –, the Assize Court took the view that, if that statement had been true the workers would have left their place of work without hesitation. The fact of fearing for their lives would have prevailed over any other consideration (such as: their unpaid wage demands; their need to earn a living, which allegedly could not have been satisfied in view of the objective inability to find another job; and all the other arguments that the workers had put forward to justify the fact that they had continued to work). 29.  On 30 July 2014 the convicted defendants appealed against the judgment of the Assize Court. The appeal, which is still pending before that same court, has suspensive effect. 30.  On 21 October 2014 the workers’ lawyers lodged an application with the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation asking him to appeal against the Assize Court judgment. In their application they submitted that the Assize Court had not adequately examined the charge of human trafficking. They took the view that, in order to determine whether that court had properly applied Article 323A of the Criminal Code, it was necessary to examine whether the accused had taken advantage of any vulnerability of the foreign nationals in order to exploit them. 31.  On 27 October 2014 the prosecutor refused to lodge an appeal. He gave reasons for his decision, indicating only that the statutory conditions for an appeal on points of law were not met. As a result of this decision, the part of the 30 July 2014 judgment concerning human trafficking became “irrevocable” (αμετάκλητη).