FROM THE PRINT EDITION. The stumbling block for the Greek judiciary is the condemnation of Greece European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg Court) for his business Andreas Georgiouwho was its head ELSTAT difficult years of fiscal adjustment (memorandums).

The case of Andreas Georgiou, which has repeatedly provoked strong reactions from European and international organizations in the past, has long been identified with political ideologies and conspiracy theories that it is he who is responsible for including the country in the memos, because it changed the 2009 deficit, as a result of which The country has fallen into a maelstrom of economic collapse.

Andreas Georgiou, who was indicted as a minor during the years of the economic crisis, faced a series of criminal charges for allegedly changing the 2009 deficit, was prosecuted and got involved in multi-year legal adventures that lasted for years.

Accountability

Evidence of the fact that Andreas Georgiou was held responsible by part of the Greek judiciary for the alleged manipulation of the deficit is the fact that related cases in which he was prosecuted as a felony (false certificates and others) led to the same series of acquittals, which , however, each time was canceled by the Supreme Court with appeals.

It took three appeals, filed by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court during the time of prosecutor Xeni Dimitriou, who led the prosecution of Georgiou, for the former head of ELSTAT to be finally cleared of crimes in the deficit case and be sentenced only for dereliction of duty to two years in prison.

European regulation

Regarding his conviction for breach of duty, which became irrevocable, Andreas Georgiou, through his lawyer Konstantinos Papadiamantis, filed an appeal with the European Court of Justice, complaining that he did not receive a fair trial in Greece, as the Supreme Court refused to grant his request for pre-trial issue to the European Court of Justice in order to explain to the Greek judge what is applicable under the European regulation of national statistical authorities, including ELSTAT.

A flurry of prosecutions for allegedly reworking the 2009 deficit and his judicial adventures, up to and including appealing to the European Court of Justice.

It should be noted that Andreas Georgiou, who became the object of political criticism and prosecution, from the very beginning of his legal adventures, was an ally of the European Statistical Office, which also sent a document stating that the 2009 deficit had not changed, but this was due to the country’s fiscal collapse. .

The document was initially attached to the criminal case of Andreas Georgiou as an accused, but was not taken into account by the judicial formations and the prosecutor’s office, which launched a flurry of criminal prosecutions against him.

After that, the European Court of Human Rights, with its decision published yesterday, managed to deal a strong blow to the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and other judicial entities, and especially to the one by which Gheorghiu’s petition to submit a pre-trial question to the European Court was rejected.

Declarations of Venizelos

Regarding the decision of the Strasbourg court, Evangelos Venizelos commented emphatically: “This is a warning and a lesson against the ongoing anti-memorandum conspiracy regarding the amount of the primary and budget deficit in 2009 and the reasons that led the country to a long adventure. memoranda. The claim that the country had no reason to resort to the memos and that the financial data for 2009 was fabricated is no longer accepted politically by anyone with an element of seriousness. However, she still finds supporters in the field of Greek justice.”

What must be done

As for the day after the decision of the Strasbourg court, which, in addition to the moral justification of Andreas Georgiou, is also a mouth-watering response to the accusations against him and his treatment in general by the Greek Ministry of Justice, Mr. Venizelos notes in his statement:

“The European Court leaves no room for misinterpretation of its decision. He included in his decision a special chapter on how Greece should, according to Article 46 of the ECHR, comply with the Strasbourg decision. This should be done by repeating the procedure (reopening) in the Supreme Court, which should address the decisive pre-trial issue to the CJEU. But let’s hope that the next composition of the competent formation of A.P. retain, at least to the limit, the elementary international authority of the Greek judiciary.”

In other words, the Supreme Court is being asked to make a new decision in the context of yesterday’s Strasbourg decision in order to avoid a humiliating condemnation of Greece and part of the Greek judiciary.