By Ioanna Mandrou

The Supreme Court responds negatively to the requests of SYRIZA-Progressive Alliance and PASOK-Movement of Change to send data to the Permanent Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the Parliament of the preliminary disciplinary procedure, which concerned the former prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office Vassiliki Vlachou. Mrs. Vlacho was disciplinary checked for the approval she gave to the surveillance of the mobile phones of the president of PASOK-KIN.ALL. Nikos Androulakis and the journalist Thanasis Koukakis, with the disciplinary investigation against her being archived following the decision of the president of the Supreme Court Inspection, vice president of the Supreme Court Elenis Fragakis.

The two parties requested that both Mrs. Fragaki and the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Evd. Poulos, who suggested the archiving.

As pointed out in a joint press release of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court “A fundamental principle of the Democratic State is the distinction between the Functions of the State, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. An essential expression of this principle is the independence of judicial and prosecutorial officials in the exercise of their duties and the prohibition of other functions to interfere in any way with it.

In this spirit, the constitutional and the common legislator, regulating the relations of the functions, among other things, have determined that the disciplinary control of all judicial and prosecutorial officials of every level cannot be referred to their jurisdictional judgment and is carried out exclusively by the relevant courts bodies, with a procedure which is secret from everyone, with the sole exception of the public meeting of disciplinary courts.

In article 43A par.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament it is provided that the Standing Committee on Institutions and Transparency can summon to a hearing the President and the Vice-Presidents of the Supreme Courts, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, the general commissioner of the State of the Audit Court and the general commissioner of the administrative courts “for issues related to operational issues of justice for the purpose of enhancing transparency”. From the clear and explicit wording of the above provision, it in no way follows that the individualized disciplinary control of judicial and prosecutorial officials belongs to these issues.

Therefore, the transmission by the judicial authorities of a document or reference to the content of a disciplinary procedure, and much more, the provision of explanations and information related to a jurisdictional judgment on a disciplinary procedure by judicial and prosecutorial officials, before the aforementioned Committee, or any other state organ are contrary to the above provisions of the Constitution and legislation. It should be noted, moreover, that as Prosecutor of the E.Y.P. according to article 5 par.3 of law 3649/2008, by today’s decision of the competent authority, pursuant to article 48 of the Organization of Courts and the Status of Judicial Officers, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Deputy Prosecutor for Appeals, Mr. Nik. Ornerakis, was appointed to replace the Prosecutor Appellant Mr. V. Vlachos. In addition, the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, K. Evd. Poulos, has been appointed as the prosecutor of article 4 par. 2 of Law 5002/2022 and not as the prosecutor of Article 5 par. 3 of Law 3649/2008.

From the above provisions it becomes clear that the competent disciplinary bodies of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court, in the exercise of their duties, know only one way to defend the independence of the Judicial Function: the strict observance of the Constitution and the Laws.
Accordingly, it is clear that the strict observance of the above principles and rules is everyone’s duty and obligation”.