An unusual resignation in the field of Justice took place in the shadows, in the shadows of the pre-electoral period, when a few days ago 23 Areopagites, among them the President of the Supreme Court Maria Georgiou, resigned with a loud voice from the Union of Judges and Prosecutors, the largest union in the judiciary.

The mass resignation of the Areopagites (the list of those who left includes important names of members of the Supreme Court) was the result of a mini-conflict that arose within the judiciary over the implementation of the provision of the law regulating the procedural issues of promotion and advanced training of judges.

The provision of the law that caused the crisis was enacted about a year ago by the New Republic government when it decided to legislate separate changes to the functioning of the judiciary and the judiciary. These changes were an attempt, albeit timidly, to stop the admittedly painful situation that has developed over decades, when capable and incompetent judges, without significant evaluation, reach the highest echelons of the judiciary, while there are dozens of those who continue to judge, although they are unable to bear the institutional burden that falls on them.

But what does the situation mean that caused a storm of reaction and led to the mass exit of the Areopagites from their judicial union? It provides that any judge who does not receive a single positive vote when considering his candidacy for promotion by the Supreme Judicial Council (this is the highest body that decides on all changes in the position of judges, and its members are elected) cannot request to be immediately reviewed by the Plenum of the Supreme court, that is, approximately 70 chief judges.

On the contrary, according to the provision under consideration, if a judge excluded from promotion has received two or three votes from the Supreme Judicial Council, which consists of fifteen or eleven members, depending on the rank of judge judges, then he may request to decide on the service of the evolution of the Plenum Supreme Court.

Most of the rejections failed to receive a single positive vote.

In recent judicial promotions, for the first time in many years, it was decided not to promote certain officials, either due to delays in issuing decisions, or because of poor reviews from their inspectors, or due to disciplinary offenses. Most of those who were refused failed to get a single positive vote and therefore could not ask the Plenum of the Supreme Court to consider their case.

At this point, reactions began. Those who did not receive a single positive vote were immediately taken over by representatives of the trade union of judges. Initially, the minority in the Union of Judges and Prosecutors were those who made vague statements, raised the issue, and some left indirectly, but indistinctly, even calls for the implementation of the unconstitutional law by the Supreme Judicial Council. However, the reaction baton, for reasons that may be related to competition at the level of trade unions, was quickly taken over by the majority in the apparatus of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors. The reaction prompted the Areopagites to rise up and demand not only their expulsion from the Union of Judges, but also an end to the deduction from their salaries, the small amount given to the Union as support for its members.

In general, in the Supreme Court, not only among the judges who left the Union, but also among the vast majority of the highest judges, there was a strong concern about the entrenched views of a significant part of judges who do not want to change much in their development and, under the mantle of long-term stagnation, want to continue the regime of nominating capable and unqualified, as has been done for years, without significant evaluation.

And the story didn’t stop there. Thirteen truncated in the last promotions, who did not receive a single positive vote (and observer judges, judges of lower ranks, who are drawn and appear – they, too, in the Supreme Judicial Councils) did not react to their reduction, decided to continue the topic.

They filed an appeal, although they are not legally entitled to do so, and asked for a Supreme Court Plenum to decide whether they should be promoted, although they were defeated by a score of 15-0 or 11-0. Indeed, the plenary session will take place on 12 June.

There, they expect him, at least, a legal clarification of the issue. However, there is widespread concern within the judiciary, with many opining that “if things happen on such an issue, consider what the reaction would be if a real assessment was decided…”.