The 65-member Disciplinary Plenary of the Supreme Court, chaired by Ioanna Klapas-Christodouleas and with the participation of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Georgia Adeilinis, permanently dismissed 3 judges from the judiciary (two appellants and one trial judge), imposed on a justice of the peace monetary penalty of 3 months’ salary deprivation, while 3 judges resigned. Alongside, the dismissal request of two judges was rejected and the case of a first instance judge was postponed.

Particularly, the Plenary was particularly concerned with the case of the appellant who served in Epirus.

And that’s because entered a supermarket and bought products worth 14 eurosapproximately, and went to the cash register shouting at the same time that he is a carrier of the corona virus and bypassing the line of customers who were in front of the cash register, he paid for the products, left the supermarket and got into the Audi brand car, which did not have number plates traffic and was parked outside the store.

As it turned out later, the plates were on the back seats of the car.

The appellant’s behavior caused panic and disturbance in the store and the manager of the supermarket called the Police and a patrol car arrived with two ELAS men.

The police asked him to give them his ID and driver’s license.

The appellant initially refused and then, instead of his car driver’s license, he gave the police an old motorcycle driver’s license.

When the police asked him why he was in the car, he responded with vulgar expressions. At the same time, he repeatedly refused to get out of the car, saying that only a prosecutor can get him out, and addressing the police, he told them “you’ll see what happens.”

Some point, suddenly, the appellant got out of the car and the officers tried to stop himbut he fought back and was thrown to the ground and handcuffed.

The moment he was being handcuffed the judge was shouting: “Look, I have drugs.” During this small skirmish, one of the policemen was slightly injured in the hand and after the incident he was taken to the local Health Center.

The policemen put him in the patrol car and on the way to the Police Station, the appellant called them obscenities and threatened them. His information, as well as his professional status, became known to the Police Department and he was released by order of the prosecutor.

It should be noted that the appellant had previously (2021) been given a disciplinary suspension of 6 months for misconduct, on and off duty.

The Areopagite rapporteur of the case said that the said appellant “he has no awareness of his basic obligations as a judicial official and he lacks the morals required for a judicial officer, while seriously affecting his prestige and that of the Judiciary” and recommended his final dismissal.

From his side, the appellant claimed in plenary that he had taken out the number plates of the car and had them on the windscreenbecause he “wanted to paint the fronts of the car”, while denying having committed any crime.

In response to a question from the president of the Plenary about which renders all involved turned against himhe replied that their behavior was provocative, they were agents and they tried to portray him as dangerous.

Yet, He stated that he has been an investigator and knows what procedures police officers follow which also illegalize that the policeman who beat him during his arrest injured himself. By unanimous decision of the Plenary, the appellant was permanently dismissed from the judiciary.

At the same time, by a majority of 54 in favor and 11 againstdismissed a female appellant for excessive tardiness and unexcused absences, to the point of statute of limitations in a personal injury case, while it took 2 years and 3 months to consider a decision.

Backlogs in different court periods ranged from 65 to 150 cases, while other cases she handled were transferred to her colleagues. In the past, he had 15 disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary penalties of reprimand and temporary suspension have been imposed on them.

The president of the Supreme Court pointed out that the head of the Court of Appeals where she serves, told her that he does not charge the said appellant cases so as not to trouble the people with her delayswhile for her part, Mrs. Adelini pointed out that her official inadequacy has been proven, as cases in her hands are time-barred and the situation is no longer saved.

So, for these reasons he was in favor of her dismissal.

Still, unanimously dismissed for insufficiency (delays) of the first instance court which for a number of years had delays of a large number of cases, ranging from 50 to 240 in different judicial years, such as a delay of 17 parliaments.

Also, 635 cases were taken from him, which were charged to his colleagues.

Ms. Klapa pointed out that the Bar Associations in the areas he served were in despair over the delays.

Yet, the president of the Supreme Court said: “What to do, he can’t perform his duties”which was repeated by Mrs. Adelini during her proposal to the Plenary.

Yet, the Plenary by majority (58 against 7), decided not to dismiss the justice of the peace due to delays, but unanimously decided to impose a fine equal to three months’ wages.

He was credited with having a small number of publications and it was indicated that in two years he had published only 12 decisions, while 32 cases had been removed from him and charged to another colleague.

The president of the Supreme Court, Ioanna Klapa-Christodoulea, emphasized during the Disciplinary Plenary Session of the Supreme Civil Court, addressing the justice of the peace:

“The citizen does not want words, he wants to take the decision into his own hands and delays in the issuance of decisions are negative justice”.