CASE OF CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA
Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed
Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Paul Mahoney
15. The applicants, Mr Cumpănă and Mr Mazăre, were born in 1951 and 1968 respectively and live in Constanţa. 16. In decision no. 33 of 30 June 1992, Constanţa City Council, implementing government decision no. 147 of 26 March 1992, introduced a fine for drivers of illegally parked vehicles and entrusted the task of removing, towing away and impounding such vehicles to S.C. CBN, a company based in Constanţa. 17. By order no. 163 of 30 June 1992, the mayor of Constanţa authorised a private company, Vinalex, to perform the services of removing, towing away and impounding illegally parked vehicles. 18. A partnership contract was signed on 16 December 1992 by the city authorities and the company in question, the signatories on behalf of the authorities being the deputy mayor (hereinafter “D.M.”) and the council’s legal expert (“Mrs R.M.”). In a letter of 1 April 1994, the mayor of Constanţa requested Vinalex to cease its activities under the contract and informed it that it was considering terminating the contract. 19. On 12 April 1994 the applicants, who are journalists by profession, published an article in the local newspaper Telegraf, of which the second applicant was the editor, with the headline “Former Deputy Mayor [D.M.] and serving judge [R.M.] responsible for series of offences in Vinalex scam”. The names of the former deputy mayor and of the city council’s former legal expert, Mrs R.M., who had subsequently become a judge, were printed in full in the headline and in the article itself. 20. The article, which appeared under the byline of both applicants, was worded as follows: “In decision no. 33 of 30 June 1992 Constanţa City Council entrusted a commercial company, S.C. CBN S.r.l., with the task of impounding illegally parked vehicles or trailers ... It was the duty of the city authorities’ specialist departments to lay down the practical arrangements for implementing the council’s decision. But things did not turn out that way. Six months after decision no. 33 was adopted, the city authorities, knowingly breaching the provisions of Law no. 69/1991, illegally concluded a partnership contract ... with S.C. Vinalex S.r.l., a company having no connection with the one initially chosen. It is worth noting, however, that the contract in question was signed by the deputy mayor, [D.M.], in place of the mayor, ... and by a certain [M.] instead of the legal expert [M.T.]. By what miracle did S.C. Vinalex enter into a partnership with the city authorities when, in decision no. 33 of 30 June 1992, the city council had authorised CBN S.r.l. to provide a straightforward service? What is striking is that there is no evidence that CBN agreed to give up the task of towing away illegally parked vehicles! ... The crook [D.M.] (the former deputy mayor, now a lawyer) granted Vinalex’s irresponsible employees the power to decide when a vehicle is illegally parked – in other words, to treat citizens and their property with contempt. What form did the fraud take? Sections 89 and 29 of Law no. 69/1991 provide that no partnership contract with a commercial company may be signed without a prior decision by the local council, adopted by a two-thirds’ majority of the total number of councillors. Before a contract is signed, it must be referred to all the local council’s specialist committees for their opinion ... The contract with Vinalex was negotiated and signed illegally, as the signatories based it on the decision [of 30 June 1992], which, as has already been shown, referred to a different company without envisaging any other partnership. Given that the city authorities had already signed four other contracts before that one, the signatories cannot claim ignorance of the law, but only an intentional breach of it! And because any intentional breach of the law pursues an end in itself – generally that of securing material advantages – it is clear that in this case the former deputy mayor, a lawyer by profession, received backhanders from the partner company and bribed subordinates, including [R.M.], or forced them to break the law. The Constanţa Audit Court detected this blatant fraud, which has generated considerable profits for the briber (S.C. Vinalex) ... The offending company [S.C. Vinalex] has never shown that it had adequate means to impound illegally parked vehicles. This explains why large numbers of privately owned vehicles have been damaged and, as a result, thousands of complaints have been made on the subject. Furthermore, the alleged partnership contract was valid for one year, until 16 December 1993. From that date [S.C. Vinalex] no longer had any right to interfere with citizens’ private property! It has nevertheless continued to tow vehicles away and illegally collect money ... It is incomprehensible how the police could have provided it with assistance for the past four months. Let us briefly consider the conduct of the council’s former legal expert, [R.M.], who is now a judge. Either she was ignorant of the law when she signed the contract, in which case it is hard to understand how she can subsequently have been appointed as a judge (delivering justice on the basis of the same laws which she does not know), or she accepted bribes and may continue to do so in future! It is no surprise that the same judge should have been investigated by the Audit Court for a further illegal act, also committed while she was at the city council (as we reported at the time). Ironically, the Court’s president did not take any action against her on the ground that the sum received was not ... large enough. Apparently becoming aware that the matter was likely to be uncovered, the city authorities’ coordination department ... notified S.C. Vinalex in writing of the possibility of the contract being terminated on the following grounds: ... ‘You have not supplied any documents showing that you have purchased the platform-type equipment necessary for carrying out the activity properly’ (as stipulated in clause 3 of the contract ...). In the same letter the city authorities informed S.C. Vinalex: ‘As you have not proved that you have the appropriate equipment, we would assess your contribution to the partnership at the level of your company’s capital, that is 110,000 lei. Your share in the partnership’s net income will have to be recalculated in relation to the parties’ contributions.’ Facts are facts, and the documents in our possession speak for themselves of the illegal Vinalex scam.” 21. The article was accompanied by a photograph of a police car on the scene as an illegally parked vehicle was being towed away, photocopies of extracts from the partnership contract and from Constanţa City Council’s decision of 30 June 1992, and certain passages of Law no. 69/1991 concerning the responsibilities and powers of mayors, prefects and city and county councils. 22. The article was also accompanied by a cartoon showing a man and a woman arm in arm, carrying a bag marked “Vinalex” which was full of banknotes. The two characters were depicted as saying to each other: “Hey, [R.] [diminutive form of Mrs R.M.’s first name], you’ve done a good job there! When I was deputy mayor we made quite a bit, enough to go to America ...” “[D.] [diminutive form of the former deputy mayor’s first name], if you become a lawyer, I’ll become a judge and we’ll have enough to travel round the world ...” 23. In June 1994 the Financial Control Department of the County Audit Court examined a report submitted on 26 May 1994 by several auditors who had conducted a review of Constanţa City Council’s budget for 1992 and had made the following findings: (a) The city council’s decision of 30 June 1992 to award S.C. CBN the contract for towing away illegally parked vehicles had not been justified by any bid submitted in writing by the company or by the company’s aims as set forth in its articles of association. (b) The city council had not given its opinion on the partnership contract signed between the city authorities and Vinalex, and no expert valuation of Vinalex’s assets had been carried out or submitted to the council for approval, contrary to the provisions of the Local Public Administration Act (Law no. 69/1991). (c) The distribution of the proceeds among the parties as agreed in the contract – 70% to Vinalex and 30% to the city council – had not corresponded to the partners’ respective contributions on the date on which the contract had been signed – 76.4% by the city council and 23.6% by Vinalex – resulting in a loss of income for the city council. The Financial Control Department considered it necessary to urge the mayor of Constanţa, as the official responsible for authorising appropriations, to “ensure compliance with the law” as regards the parties’ obligations under the contract and to be more efficient when entering into such partnerships with private entities in future. A formal decision to that effect was adopted on 8 June 1994 by the head of the department. 24. The applicants produced to the Court a report dated 17 March 1994 by the same Audit Court auditors, which likewise referred to the irregularities described in paragraph 23 above in the signing of the partnership contract between the city authorities and Vinalex, and indicated that the contract should be terminated. The applicants did not mention the existence of such a report during the criminal proceedings instituted against them following the publication of the impugned newspaper article. 25. On 14 April 1994, following the publication of the article, Mrs R.M. instituted proceedings against the applicants in the Constanţa Court of First Instance for insult and defamation, offences under Articles 205 and 206 respectively of the Criminal Code. She complained, in particular, of the cartoon accompanying the article, which had depicted her as a “woman in a miniskirt, on the arm of a man with a bag full of money and with certain intimate parts of her body emphasised as a sign of derision”. She submitted that the article, the cartoon and the dialogue between the characters had led readers to believe that she had had intimate relations with D.M., and pointed out that she and the former deputy mayor were both married. 26. At a hearing on 13 May 1994, the court adjourned the case as the applicants were not present and, scheduling a further hearing for 27 May 1994, directed that they should be brought before the court on that date. 27. On 27 May 1994 the second applicant stated at the hearing that, as editor, he assumed full responsibility for what had been published in the newspaper. He explained that cartoons were frequently used in the press as a medium for criticism and that he had not intended to damage the claimant’s reputation. In reply to a question from the court, he admitted having known that, by order of the mayor of Constanţa, Vinalex had been authorised to tow away illegally parked vehicles. He stated, however, that he had not thought it necessary to publish that information. Lastly, he stressed that he did not intend to reach a settlement with the injured party and that he was prepared to publish an article in her favour provided that she could prove that what he had published was untrue. 28. On 10 June 1994 the applicants applied to have the case transferred to a court in another county. They also requested an adjournment of the proceedings, arguing that because the claimant was a judge it was impossible for them to find a member of the Constanţa Bar who would agree to represent them. 29. On an unspecified date the Constanţa Bar, in reply to a question from the court, attested that the applicants had not met with a refusal on the part of all of its members and that, in any event, the matter had not been referred to its executive. 30. On 15 June and 1 July 1994 the court adjourned the case as the applicants were not present. 31. In an interlocutory decision of 21 July 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the referral of the case to the Lehliu-Gară Court of First Instance. 32. On 15 November 1994 the case was entered on that court’s list of cases for hearing. Public hearings were held on 21 December 1994 and on 25 January, 27 February, 20 March, 17 April and 17 May 1995. 33. On 21 December 1994 and 25 January 1995 the applicants did not attend the hearings, although they had been duly summoned. The court summoned them to appear at the hearings on 25 January and 27 February 1995. The applicants did not comply with the summonses. 34. At the hearings on 27 February and 20 March 1995, representatives of Telegraf applied for an adjournment on behalf of the applicants, who were not present. The court allowed the application. 35. On 20 March 1995 a member of the Bucharest Bar, N.V., agreed to represent the applicants. 36. At the hearing on 17 April 1995 in the morning, N.V. asked the court to consider the case after 11.30 a.m. The court granted his request. However, when it sat to examine the case at 12 noon and, subsequently, at 2.30 p.m. it noted that neither the applicants nor their counsel were present in the courtroom. It accordingly adjourned the case until 17 May 1995. 37. At the hearing on 17 May 1995 the court reserved judgment, after noting that neither the applicants – despite their having been duly summoned – nor their counsel had appeared. In a judgment delivered on the same day, the court found the applicants guilty of insult and defamation – offences under Articles 205 and 206 respectively of the Criminal Code. It sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment for insult and seven months’ imprisonment for defamation, and ordered them both to serve the heavier sentence, namely seven months’ immediate imprisonment. As well as this main penalty, the court imposed the secondary penalty of disqualification from exercising all the civil rights referred to in Article 64 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 58 below). It also prohibited the applicants from working as journalists for one year after serving their prison sentences, a security measure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 115 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 59 below). Lastly, it ordered them to pay Mrs R.M. 25,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) (equivalent to 2,033 euros at the exchange rate applicable at the material time) for non-pecuniary damage. 38. In stating its reasons for the judgment, the court observed, firstly: “The Court notes that the injured party has always been present, both in the Constanţa Court of First Instance and in the Lehliu-Gară Court of First Instance, whereas the defendants have generally been absent without justification, despite having been lawfully summoned. In support of her prior complaint, the injured party, Mrs [R.M.], sought leave to produce documentary evidence. Mrs [R.M.] submitted a copy of the 12 April 1994 edition of the local newspaper Telegraf, containing the article referred to in her complaint and the cartoon in which she was ridiculed. The Court notes that the defendants and the party liable to pay damages, despite being lawfully summoned, have not attended any hearings, and that only the injured party has been present. The Court notes that the defendants R. Mazăre and C. Cumpănă were informed of the charges against them and of the hearing dates, and that they were assisted by a lawyer of their choosing (who asked the Court first for an adjournment and subsequently for consideration of the case to be postponed until the second sitting, after 11.30 a.m.). The Court observes that the defendant R. Mazăre gave evidence to the Constanţa Court of First Instance at a public hearing on 27 May 1994, and notes the following from his testimony: the defendant considered that it was not compulsory to have studied at journalism college to work as a journalist; he refused to reply when asked whether he had had access to any other documents on which Constanţa City Council’s decision no. 33 had been based; he understood by ‘series of offences’ the fact of committing several offences; he understood by ‘a multiple breach of the criminal law’ the commission of several offences; he considered that the injured party, in signing the contract in her capacity as a legal expert at the city council, had infringed a number of the provisions of Law no. 69/1991; he pointed out that he could not give the precise legal classification of the offences committed by the injured party, as that did not come within his sphere of competence; he stated that he had said everything there had been to say about the injured party in the newspaper article; he submitted that cartoons were used everywhere and maintained that he had not (through the cartoon) damaged anybody’s reputation (specifically, that of the injured party). [The Court] notes that the defendant R. Mazăre stated that he assumed full responsibility for everything published in his newspaper, as its editor; ... that he stated that he was aware of the constitutional provisions on the right of journalists to impart information to the public; that he had read the government decision in its entirety but had not published it for lack of space; that he also stated that he had read the full text of the partnership contract entered into by the city authorities and signed by the injured party, Mrs [R.M.], but that he did not know whether the government decision had referred to partnership contracts; ... that the defendant had been aware that the Vinalex company had been authorised by order of the mayor of Constanţa to provide the service of towing away illegally parked vehicles, but that he had not thought it necessary to publish that information in the newspaper; and, lastly, that he stated: ‘In view of the seriousness of the offences committed, I do not think that it was necessary to discuss the matter with the injured party beforehand. Should any documents prove that my statements are unfounded, I am prepared to publish an article in the injured party’s favour.’ ” 39. With regard to the documentary evidence on which the injured party intended to rely in support of her allegations, the court observed: “Apart from the article published in Telegraf, the injured party, Mrs [R.M.], produced Constanţa City Council’s decision no. 33 – adopted in accordance with government decision no. 147 of 26 March 1992 – in which it was decided to tow away illegally parked vehicles; order no. 163 of 30 June 1992 by the mayor of Constanţa ... authorising the Vinalex company to remove, tow away and impound illegally parked vehicles (‘The conditions for the performance of these services shall be laid down in the partnership contract to be drawn up’); government decision no. 147 of 26 March 1992, in which mayors were empowered to order the removal, towing away and impounding of illegally parked vehicles by duly authorised specialist companies; and order no. 369 of 1 July 1994 by the mayor of Constanţa, in which Vinalex was authorised to provide such services.” 40. With regard more particularly to the article and cartoon in issue, the court held: “... the article, by the defendants R. Mazăre and C. Cumpănă, was directed at the injured party, tarnishing her honour, dignity and public image and injuring her own self-esteem by means of the (written) accusations conveyed through signs and symbols targeted specifically at her. The Court considers that these acts took place, that they are punishable under the criminal law, and that they posed a danger to society, not so much because of their practical effect (physical distortion of outward reality) but above all because of the psycho-social consequences resulting from the provision of misleading or incorrect information to the public, giving rise to inaccurate judgments about facts and individuals, establishing a false scale of values in view of the role and public impact of the media, and causing psychological trauma to the injured party. In making its assessment, the Court has had regard to the particular status of the parties to the proceedings: the injured party, Mrs [R.M.], being a lawyer and a representative of the judiciary, and the defendants, Mr R. Mazăre and Mr C. Cumpănă, being representatives of the media. The Court notes that the defendant R. Mazăre, while realising the seriousness of the acts he had committed, irresponsibly stated that he had been ‘aware of the fact that Vinalex had been authorised by order of the mayor, but did not consider it necessary to publish that order (as well)’... The Court considers that publication of the article in the newspaper cannot have been justified by a ‘legitimate interest’ in that it was not based on actual facts and the provision of accurate information to the public. It concludes that the defendants ... ‘forgot’ the content of Article 30 § 6 of the Constitution: ‘Freedom of expression shall not be prejudicial to a person’s dignity, honour and private life or to the right to one’s own image’, and of Article 31 § 4 of the Constitution: ‘Public and private media shall be required to provide the public with accurate information.’ It follows from the written submissions filed by the injured party ... that it was always her wish that the criminal proceedings be terminated by a friendly settlement, provided that the defendants agreed to retract the allegations made in the article. The Court notes that the injured party is a public figure and that, following the publication of the article, her superiors and the authority above them asked her to explain herself regarding the trial, particularly in view of the fact that she was due to take the professional examination to obtain permanent status.” 41. On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against the first-instance judgment of 17 May 1995. 42. At a hearing on 2 November 1995, the Călăraşi County Court reserved judgment, having noted that the case was ready for decision and that the applicants had not appeared in court, despite having been duly summoned, and had not stated any grounds for their appeal. 43. In a judgment of 2 November 1995, the court, after examining all the aspects of the case against the applicants, as required by Article 3856 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upheld the first-instance judgment, finding it to have been correct. The County Court’s judgment, sent to the archives on 23 November 1995, was final and binding and no ordinary appeal lay against it. 44. On 10 April 1996 the Procurator-General applied to the Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments of 17 May 1995 and 2 November 1995 quashed. He submitted the following arguments. (a) The courts’ legal classification of the facts had been incorrect. Pointing out that in the cartoon the applicants had simply highlighted their allegations of corruption on the part of certain city council officials, he accordingly submitted that the facts in issue did not constitute the actus reus of insult as defined in Article 205 of the Criminal Code. (b) The amount the applicants had been ordered to pay in damages had been extremely high and had not been objectively justified. (c) Lastly, the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 115 of the Criminal Code, by which the courts could prohibit persons who had committed unlawful acts from practising a particular profession on account of their incompetence, lack of training or any other ground making them unfit to practise the profession, were not satisfied in the applicants’ case, as there was no unequivocal proof that the applicants were incompetent to continue working as journalists or that their doing so entailed a potential danger. 45. In a final judgment of 9 July 1996, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Procurator-General’s application as being manifestly ill-founded, for the following reasons: “It has been established from the evidence adduced in the present case that on 12 April 1994 the accused, R. Mazăre and C. Cumpănă, published an article in the Constanţa newspaper Telegraf entitled ‘Former Deputy Mayor [D.M.] and serving judge [R.M.] responsible for series of offences in Vinalex scam’, in which it was asserted that in 1992, while she was employed as a legal expert at Constanţa City Council, the injured party, Mrs [R.M.], had been involved in fraudulent activities on the part of a commercial company, Vinalex. The Supreme Court further notes that, alongside the above-mentioned article, the accused published a cartoon in which the injured party was depicted in the company of a man carrying a bag full of money on his back, and that this was likely to tarnish the injured party’s honour, dignity and public image. It follows that in publishing the article in Telegraf, the accused attributed specific acts to the injured party which, had their allegations been made out, would have rendered her criminally liable; the two lower courts were therefore correct in finding the accused guilty of defamation under Article 206 of the Criminal Code. The fact that the accused published alongside the above-mentioned article a cartoon in which the injured party was depicted in the company of a man carrying a bag full of money, in such a way as to tarnish her honour and reputation, constitutes the offence of insult as defined in Article 205 of the Criminal Code ...” 46. With regard to the amount which the applicants had been ordered to pay in damages, the Supreme Court held: “... the requirement for the accused to pay 25,000,000 lei for non-pecuniary damage was justified, since it is beyond dispute that in publishing the article on 12 April 1994 in a mass-circulation newspaper, the accused seriously offended the dignity and honour of the injured party.” 47. The Supreme Court held, lastly, in relation to the alleged unlawfulness of the temporary prohibition on the applicants’ working as journalists: “... since the application of security measures in circumstances other than those provided for by law does not feature on the exhaustive list of cases in which the law permits the Procurator-General to apply to have a decision quashed, it cannot form a legal basis for quashing the judgments in issue.” 48. The applicants did not serve the prison sentence they had received in the judgment of 2 November 1995, since immediately after the judgment had been delivered the Procurator-General suspended its execution for eleven months by virtue of Article 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 61 in fine below). 49. In a letter of 30 September 1996, the Procurator-General at the Supreme Court of Justice informed the applicants that he had extended the stay of execution until 27 November 1996. 50. On 22 November 1996 the applicants were granted a presidential pardon dispensing them from having to serve their prison sentence. By virtue of Article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the pardon also waived their secondary penalty of disqualification from exercising their civil rights (see paragraph 58 in fine below). 51. It appears from the first applicant’s employment record (cartea de muncă), of which he submitted a copy to the Court, that, following the Călăraşi County Court’s judgment of 2 November 1995: (a) he continued to work for Telegraf as editor of the “Events” section until 1 February 1996, when he was transferred for administrative reasons to the C. company, occupying the same position and receiving the same salary as before; (b) while working for C., he was awarded a pay rise; (c) he ceased to work for C. on 14 April 1997 on account of staff cutbacks by his employer, a ground for dismissal provided for in Article 130 (a) of the Labour Code as worded at the material time; (d) thereafter, he was not gainfully employed until 7 February 2000, when he was recruited on a permanent contract by the A. company as deputy editor. 52. Following the final and binding judgment of 2 November 1995, the second applicant continued to work as editor of Telegraf, as indicated in a letter he sent to the Court on 19 January 2000. 53. Between 1 September 1997 and 30 November 1999, while he was a member of the Romanian parliament, the sum of ROL 25,000,000 was deducted from his parliamentary allowance and transferred to Mrs R.M.’s bank account, pursuant to the Lehliu-Gară Court of First Instance’s judgment of 17 May 1995 (see paragraph 37 in fine above). 54. On an unspecified date after that judgment, he was elected mayor of Constanţa, a position he still holds. 55. At the material time the relevant provisions were worded as follows: “Anyone who tarnishes the reputation or honour of another through words, gestures or any other means shall be liable to imprisonment for between one month and two years or to a fine.” “Anyone who makes any statement or allegation in public concerning a particular person which, if true, would render that person liable to a criminal, administrative or disciplinary penalty or expose them to public opprobrium shall be liable to imprisonment for between three months and three years or to a fine.” 56. In Resolution no. 1123 of 24 April 1997 on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Romania, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe observed that Articles 205 and 206 of the Romanian Criminal Code were unacceptable and seriously compromised the exercise of fundamental freedoms, in particular the freedom of the press. The Assembly therefore called on the Romanian authorities to amend those provisions without delay. 57. Following a process of legislative reform, the New Romanian Criminal Code Act (Law no. 301 of 28 June 2004) provides that the offence of defamation is punishable solely by a fine (Article 225 of the New Criminal Code) and no longer classifies insult as a criminal offence. These legislative amendments will come into force on 29 June 2005. 58. The relevant provisions are worded as follows: “Disqualification from exercising one or more of the rights mentioned below may be imposed as an additional penalty: (a) the right to vote and to be elected to bodies of a public authority or to public elective office; (b) the right to occupy a position entailing the exercise of State authority; (c) the right to perform a duty or practise a profession or activity by means of which the convicted person carried out the offence; (d) parental rights; (e) the right to act as a child’s guardian or statutory representative.” “The secondary penalty shall consist in disqualification from exercising all the rights listed in Article 64. A life sentence or any other prison sentence shall automatically entail disqualification from exercising the rights referred to in the preceding paragraph from the time at which the conviction becomes final until the end of the term of imprisonment or the granting of a pardon waiving the execution of the sentence ...” 59. The relevant provision is worded as follows: “Anyone who has committed an [unlawful] act through incompetence, lack of training or for any other reasons rendering him or her unfit to perform certain duties or to practise a certain profession or activity may be prohibited from performing those duties or practising that profession or activity. Such a measure may be revoked on request after one year if the grounds on which it was imposed are no longer valid. ...” 60. The relevant provisions are worded as follows: “A pardon shall have the effect of waiving the execution of a sentence. ... A pardon shall have no effect on security measures or educational measures.” “A person sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than one year shall be legally rehabilitated if he does not commit any further offences for three years.” 61. The relevant provisions are worded as follows: “The Procurator-General may, of his own motion or on an application by the Minister of Justice, apply to the Supreme Court of Justice for any final decision to be quashed.” “An application to have a final conviction ... quashed may be made: I. ... ... 4. where the penalties imposed fell outside the limits prescribed by law; ... 7. where the offence was incorrectly classified in law ...” “Before applying to have a decision quashed, the Procurator-General may order a stay of its execution.”