“Colafo” and “a lesson in the name of the European rule of law” characterize Evangelos Venizelos decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of the former head of ELSTAT, Andreas Georgiouagainst Greece.

“In 2017, the Athens Court of Appeal found Andreas Georgiou guilty of dereliction of duty, and the Supreme Court rejected his motion to set aside the sentence,” recalls former Deputy Prime Minister and former President of PASOK.

And points out: “Today’s decision The ECHR considers that Greece, by the above decision of the Supreme Court, violated Article 6 par 1 of the ECHR, i.e. the right to a fair trial.”

Finally, Mr. Venizelos emphasizes that the ECtHR leaves no room for misinterpretation of its decision, since it includes a special chapter on how Greece should implement the Strasbourg decision.

Fasting by Evangelos Venizelos

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published today in the case of Georgiou v. Greece, in which the complainant was the former head of ELSTAT Andreas Georgiou, who is a symbolic victim of the way the Greek judiciary operates, is a crucible and a lesson in the name of the European rule of law.

It serves as a test and a lesson against the adamant anti-memorandum conspiracy theory about the size of its primary and budget deficits. 2009 and the reasons that led the country to a long adventure of memorandums. The claim that the country had no reason to resort to the memos and that the 2009 fiscal data was a fabrication is no longer accepted politically by anyone with rudimentary seriousness. However, she still finds supporters in the field of Greek justice. In 2017, the Athens Court of Appeal found Andreas Georgiou guilty of dereliction of duty, and the Supreme Court rejected his motion to set aside his conviction, refusing to take a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the significance of a key provision of the Regulation governing EUROSTAT and national statistical authorities.

Respondent’s motion to refer the preliminary question to the CJEU was rejected without explanation.

By today’s decision, the ECHR considers that Greece, by the above decision of the Supreme Court, violated Article 6 par 1 of the ECHR, that is, the right to a fair trial. The ECtHR recalled its established jurisprudence, according to which the inaction and effectively unjustified refusal of the national court of an EU Member State (which is apparently also a State party to the ECtHR and the Council of Europe) to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU. , even though it has a corresponding obligation in relation to Article 267 TFEU (such a court is the AU) and even if a corresponding request was made, it constitutes a violation of Article 6 par 1 ECHR, i.e. the right to a fair trial. A particularly important issue for relations between the EU and the ECtHR.

The ECtHR leaves no room for misinterpretation of its decision. He included in his decision a special chapter on how Greece should comply with the Strasbourg decision under Article 46 of the ECHR. This must be done by repeating the procedure (reopening) before the CA, which must address the decisive pre-trial issue to the CJEU. Theoretically, the SA could this time justify refusing the request to refer the preliminary question to Luxembourg, but let’s hope that a different composition of the competent formation of the SA will retain, at least to the limit, the elementary international authority of Greek justice.