Sounds like you want a legal opinion, but common sense would rather suggest not. it wouldn't be a "charge" so much as civil suit for damages. The point of having limits is that you should fall within them.
It is perhaps worth remembering that the reason for a high standard of eyesight is because it is an important requirement in flying. The ability to have good visual acuity in busy airport environments is a major factor in preventing missed signage, stopbars, lights etc, and the possibility of runway incursions.
Most peoples eyesight deteriorates with age and allowance is made for this by setting a high standard at initial licence issue. That deterioration is to some extent compensated by experience gained over the years in between.
If the authority were to permit somebody with sub standard eyesight to hold a class 1, in violation of their own standards and variations they most definetaly would lay themselves open to a civil suit in the event that person became causal in a subsequent incident or accident where such negligence might be a significant factor.
The sucessful completion of flight training does not and never has entitled you to a class 1 medical, and it would be foolish to embark on such training without first meeting the requirements and obtaining the required class 1 medical certificate.
The regulatory authority is required to discriminate, it is a part of their safety and oversight function.