“In democracies, legislation is the responsibility of parliament, not the choice of each judge,” says the interior minister. Makis Voridisanswering in an unprecedented statement by the Vice President of the Supreme CourtChristos Tsanerikos, regarding the regulations-bloc of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the party Kasidiari.

He also notes that the composition of Department A1 is fixed and does not depend on the legislative initiative of the government, while he criticizes SYRIZA, saying that its position, which prefers a limited composition of the court instead of a plenary session, is inexplicable. judicial formation.

“Regarding the statements of the President of Department A1 of the Supreme Court, the following is noted:

The government respects the independence of the judiciary and does not oppose it.

We note that with regard to the upcoming major crisis related to the participation in the elections of parties whose founding members or candidates or de facto leaders were convicted of leading a criminal organization, the government’s position is simple:

more eyes, more informed judgment, without exclusion of the judge of the competent department from the composition.

The legislative initiative of the Government covers up the decision of the Court, whatever it may be.

It is emphasized that the composition of Department A1 is predetermined and in no way depends on the legislative initiative of the government. In any case, it is self-evident that in democratic states legislation is the responsibility of parliament, and not the choice of each judge.

Rather inexplicable is the position of SYRIZA, which prefers a limited composition of the court for such a question instead of a plenary session of the judicial composition.

As for me, I have never dismissed the decision of Justice, on the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that, obviously, I cannot anticipate it, but I have explained the reason that caused the need for already existing legislation. Without this, it would not have been possible for the A1 Department of the Supreme Court to issue an appropriate decision.”

Tzanerikos’ statement

It is noted that the public position of Mr. Tsanerikos made a splash, as this is perhaps the first time that the Chief Justice publicly declares before the meeting of the Court what he believes, in fact, revealing his voice.

“On the basis of the amendment – addition of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, amending paragraph 1 of Article 32 of Presidential Decree 26/2012, an unprecedented time regulation for the judiciary is introduced, establishing a plenary session of the political section of the Supreme Court. Unprecedented, since it represents a direct interference in the activities of the Supreme Court, since both in accordance with article 23 of the previous Law 1756/1988, and in accordance with article 27 of the already existing Law 4938/2022: “… Each department is composed by the President and four (4) Areopagites …”, and not from all employees there are Areopagites in it, the number of which, it should be noted, is not the same in all departments, but can be changed, with the appropriate decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court or, in exceptional cases, acts of the chairman of the AC, approved by his Plenum. There has never been a plenary session of a department composed of all its judges. It should also be noted that in the event of an equality of votes in the Plenary section with an even number of judges, since multi-member compositions (Article 4 of Law 1756/1988 and already in force 4938/2022) must have an odd number, an agreement should be introduced (in the union) on the predominance of the opinion of its president.

A provision that is introduced along with the challenged amendment, despite its apparent validity, i.e. “protection of any decision of the Supreme Court” on the declaration or non-declaration of the parties referred to in Article 32 of the AP. 26/2012, so that it cannot be challenged, it photographically captures the distrust and distrust of me on the part of the government, which had the corresponding legislative initiative, regarding the exercise of my discretion in determining the (five-member) composition of the department of which I am president. Are not the hundreds of thousands of decisions of the divisions of the Supreme Court, which are delivered or will be delivered by their five-seat panels, and not by their plenary sessions, not defended and cannot be challenged? The second addition, in which section A1 of the CA may request data to document its respective decision, from the competent or other authorities, as the case may be, was completely unnecessary, since with what was already in force, from February last year, regulation, department also checks the ex officio help of the terms of the declaration. So, in the context of his ex officio investigation, where could he get data to document his decision? at a nearby grocer?

Finally, it should not escape our attention that the Ministry of the Interior, by announcing the amendment on ERT on Thursday (04.06), impermissibly intervened directly in the decision of section A1 of the CA, stating, among other things: “There cannot be a deep contradiction here, on the one On the other hand, the Criminal Department of Justice (note: I forgot to say below the Supreme Court) condemns him (including Casidiaris) as the leader of a criminal organization, and on the other hand, justice also comes, A1 of the Supreme Court, which says that he is a political leader.” In other words , the Ministry of Internal Affairs indirectly but clearly indicated to the judges of department A1 what their judgment should be in a particular case.

Mr. Tzanerikos usually mentions: “The regulation, which is introduced with a controversial amendment, despite its apparent validity, i.e. “protection of any decision of the Supreme Court” from the statement or non-party referred to in Article 32 P.D. 26/2012, so that it cannot be disputed, it photographically captures the distrust and distrust of me by the government.”

At the same time, Deputy Prosecutor A.P. Anastasios Kanallopoulos, who took over as head of the Greek party of Elias Kasidiaris, sets the tone for what is to come with his new statement, as he states: “The Voridis arrangement not only does not deter us, but makes us even more stubborn. to continue the fight!”.