Reversal of a fine imposed by the SEPE. It was deemed illegal to impose it for not listing an employee on the staff list. Decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Larissa no. 153/2016.

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LARISSA
(SECTION C-SINGLE MEMBERS)
DECISION 153/2016

He met in public at his hearing, on May 19, 2015, with Judge Stylianos Papadopoulos, Court of First Instance. and secretary Chrysanthi Katsioula, court clerk, to adjudicate the appeal with filing number 52 / 28.1.2014, of the limited liability company with the name “…………….”, based in Larissa (street …………) and is represented by the administrator …………, who appeared after the attorney of Larissa Christos Tsiambalis, against the Greek State , represented in this case, according to article 326 par. 4 of law 4072/2012 (Government Gazette A ’86), by the Head of the Regional Center for Occupational Risk Prevention (KEPEK) of Central Greece and already of the Regional Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Inspection of Thessaly – Central Greece of the Labor Inspection Body, represented by the authorized employee of the same service ……………. During the discussion the parties developed their allegations and requested what is stated in the minutes. The Court after studying the case file. He thought in accordance with the law. 1. Because, with the adjudicated appeal, for the exercise of which the legal fee was paid (relative to the number ………….., serial ………. …… duplicate collection type – A of …. Tax Office ………….), the cancellation is sought, otherwise the reform, of …. ……………. act of imposing a fine of the competent Labor Inspectors of the Department of Technical and Health Inspection of Larissa of the Regional KEPEK. Central Greece of the Labor Inspection Body, which imposed a fine of 10,549.44 euros on the applicant, for the alleged violation of labor law and, in particular, of article 16 par. 5 par. a of Law 2874/2000, as in force (employment was found and the employee was not listed in the List of Employed Personnel and Working Hours ………….
In such a case, that action is duly brought before that Court, and on the ground that it was brought within the prescribed period and in accordance with the law, it must be formally upheld and examined on its merits.
2. Because, in article 16 of law 2874/2000 (Government Gazette A ‘286) it is defined that: “1. Every employer subject to the provisions of the present is obliged as once a year and during the period from September 15 to November 15 to submit, in any way, to the competent service of the S.E.P.E. – Department of Social Inspection, in duplicate, table with the name, type, place of operation and the TIN. of the company which will include the following details of each of the employees employed in it … 2. ……. 4. With the care of the employer one copy of the above table is received by the filing service sealed and posted in a visible point of the place of work without the column of paid salaries, adequately protected from any damages ….. 5. (as this paragraph was replaced by article first subpara. K. 13 par. 1 of law 4093/2012, Government Gazette A ‘ 222) The employer is obliged to submit additional staff tables regarding the changed data: a) for the recruitment of a new employee, no later than the same day of the recruitment and in any case before the employee assumes service, b) … The submission of additional data can be done in writing or electronically “. 3. Because, moreover, article 24 of law 3996/2011 “Reform of the Body of Labor Inspectors, regulations of Social Security issues and other provisions” (Government Gazette A ‘170) stipulates that: “1. (as the first paragraph of this paragraph was replaced by par. 6 of article 23 of law 4144/2013, Government Gazette A ’88) The employer who violates the provisions of labor legislation is imposed after a previous invitation to provide explanations: A. Fine for each violation from three hundred (300) euros to fifty thousand (50,000) euros with a reasoned act either by the competent Head of the Inspection Department following a relevant recommendation of the Labor Inspector who carried out the audit or by the relevant Head of the Regional Directorate or the Special Labor Inspector who carried out the audit … 2. ……… 4. In the case of the following directly proven violations of the legislation, an administrative sanction of par. 1, case A ‘and / or par. in the cases of par. 3 of article 26 and b. in the following cases: aa. non-posting of staff schedule and work schedule, bb. non-display of license book, cc. Non-demonstration of a special overtime book, dd. non-display of a book of daily reports of employed construction and technical staff, ee. non-posting of work regulations to liable companies, p. do not perform