Folli Follie: The positions of the Athens Bar Association on the postponement of the trial of the case

The Athens Bar Association (DSA) with today’s announcement responds to the judges on the issue of postponing the discussion of the case Folly Folly and notes that the exclusive reason for the lawyers’ abstention is the unconstitutional amendment of Article 187 of the Criminal Code.

It is recalled that with the new provision of article 187 of the Civil Code they are sent to prison also convicted of misdemeanors (theft, property damage, etc.), if committed by a gang.

In more detail, the announcement of the DSA is as follows:

“On the occasion of the unprecedented objections contained in the decision of the 5th Three-Member Court of Criminal Appeals of Athens, during the hearing on 14.12.2022, for the postponement of the discussion of the Folli Follie case, the DSA points out the following:

1. Lawyers, as co-workers of Justice, claim to exercise their function in a legal framework of the rule of law, which respects judicial independence, the presumption of innocence and the fundamental rights of the accused. Their flagrant violation with the amendment of article 187 of the Civil Code is the sole reason for the declared abstinence.

This unconstitutional provision has been strongly criticized by almost the entire legal community (judges and lawyers), who have requested its substantial amendment, which the government unjustifiably stubbornly refuses to this day.

2. The Folli Follie case does not fall within the framework for granting leave from abstinence.

There is no statute of limitations, given that the charges concern for all the defendants consecutive acts with a time of execution from 2008 to 2018, nor are the maximum limits of temporary detention completed, which are the only reasons for granting the license.

3. The context of abstinence applies to everything.

We do not see why this particular trial should be treated differently and exceptionally and we are surprised by the relevant reference of the Court. The Court must treat all cases as of equal weight. Each case is important for the parties involved and the principle of equal treatment requires that they be treated equally.

Nowhere in the law does the so-called “high-profile cases” take precedence over others, as claimed by this particular Court.

4. The reasons for the delays in criminal justice are known and are due in particular to the delays observed in the criminal preliminary proceedings.

So let them show the same sensitivity for the criminal cases that stagnate for years in the offices of investigators and prosecutors and are tried shortly before the statute of limitations under the Damocles sword of the statute of limitations. Most characteristic of all is the case of the fire in Mati.

5. It is also worthy of question as to whether the obligations of the specific judicial composition differ, vis-a-vis their other colleagues, who also try multi-person criminal trials, in terms of their obligations to participate in other trials and the effects on the functioning of the Court of Appeal?

Everyone should assume their responsibilities and not try to pass them on to others. Accusations against the co-operators of Themis neither provide sufficient justification for the judicial decision, nor contribute to the correct and speedy administration of justice.

6. Finally, the preferential targeting of the legal body by the specific court decision against the responsibilities of the State does not go unnoticed given that until recently an advisor to the Minister of Justice participated in the specific judicial composition.

Read the News today and get the latest news.
Follow Skai.gr on Google News and be the first to know all the news.