“A Trivial Appeal to Justice” was the title of an article by members of the board of directors. Union of Judges of the Supreme Court, published in “Kathimerini” on 15.02.2023. The ease with which the Greeks resort to justice is pointed out, reinforced by the “bloat of lawyers and judges”, and that often “litigation is not done in order to achieve a judicial resolution of the dispute. This is being done for a different purpose…. Of course, frequent and easy recourse to justice causes certain delays in the courts, but this also negatively affects the quality of decisions. Both of these are an obstacle to the economic progress of the country.

The use of an appeal to justice for “another purpose” must be taken for granted. And this is because every citizen includes the conduct of a trial in the strategy that he has chosen to defend his interests. A simple example: a debtor who postpones his disposition of an asset with interruptions and suspensions gains something: at least the use of the asset for a longer period of time. The question is how to cope with the multiplicity that has arisen, how to speed up the course of justice.

Often offer to increase the cost of going to court. In Greece, however, any such measure would be met with strong legal backlash but would also be criticized as undemocratic and unconstitutional because it makes it harder for people with lower incomes to access justice. Well, this discussion is probably pointless.

But there are solutions to limit the multiplicity of litigation, both by limiting the scope of litigation and improving quality. Examples: Decriminalization of crimes against honor. What’s the point of sentencing someone to a prison term they won’t serve for libel or defamation after losing many hours of work (including the postponement of the trial)? Isn’t it enough to sue for defamation? Apparently so. Or even: if deliberately groundless claims are made – as provided by law, but the act is overlooked – instead of the prevailing idea: “let them find it in the hall.” Or again: to make agreed breaks not in the classroom, but in the desk the day before, this would facilitate the audience. Or, if further: instead of dismissing the lawsuits as vague months later and bringing back the parties with new lawsuits, the speaker should ask the parties to clarify what was not sufficiently defined.

But apart from the above fragmentary considerations, an institutional reform of civil justice, or rather a return to the original form of 1968, could help, especially in the presence of a climate of cooperation between lawyers and judges. In particular: before the hearing of the case and after the parties have submitted their motions, the rapporteur judge will – once again – hold an organizational discussion with the parties’ lawyers – possibly electronically; there the speaker, now fully aware of the case, will present critical and contested legal and factual issues – in the latter case, witnesses may also be examined; he will indicate which of the preambles he finds inadmissible as a matter of law, and will fix a time limit for filling in any gaps and ambiguities, for any useful clarifications to be provided by the parties.

Lawyers who have a first impression of the progress of the case will have the right to limit their requests, usually: seeing what “does not work”, they will recommend to their client to limit his requests. Perhaps at this point it will be necessary to hold the initial conciliation session, and not before the filing of motions, as now, that is, when the lawyers will have a better idea of ​​u200bu200bhow the judge looks at the case. Obviously, the parties will have the right to insist on a trial. And they can be justified. But if they endure and fail, they will have to pay an especially high price. Thus, at this point, the deterrent function of increasing the cost of litigation is activated, i.e. it will not be seen as an obstacle to access to justice. This type of cooperation between judges and lawyers exists in arbitration in various forms, but it was also provided for in the original form of the Civil Code of 1968.

Of course, much more could be said, such as further improvements in electronic litigation, but we go beyond the present.

* Mr. Konstantinos P. Papadiamantis – Associate, Partner at POTAMITISVEKRIS Law Firm.