The 48-member Disciplinary Plenary of the Supreme Courtunder the chairmanship of Ioanna Klapas-Christodouleas and with the participation of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Georgias Adeilini, unanimously dismissed a woman Judge of First Instance due to long delays in issuing decisions over a number of years.

Particularly, the Disciplinary Plenum of the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of the definitive suspension of the First Instance for inadequacy of exercising the judicial function, due to the many delays in issuing decisions for a long period of time.

Offenses almost became statute-barred

Areopagite rapporteur Georgia Katsimagli said that due to the delays in the cities where the Court of First Instance served there were written and telephone ones protests lawyers and citizens for the large backlog he had.

Furthermore, Mrs. Katsimagli added that when said Court of First Instance served on Piraeus, 59 cases were removed from it which was excessively delayed, in order to be charged to her other colleagues, as it existed risk of statute of limitations and she was asked to return the case files. Despite this, the case files were not delivered and an indictment was filed against her for misappropriation of documents.

After all, these files were delivered by the former Court of First Instance to her superior, however, one case file was never returned, but she also did not answer whether she has lost it or not, resulting in the ex officio reconstitution of the lost case file.

A similar incident occurred in Heraklion where she served, as they were taken from her 44 cases and she was again asked to return 25 which she had in hand, but she did not return them until the day of the meeting of the Disciplinary Plenary.

He didn’t deliver cases

However, after the end of the session of the Plenary, Mrs. Klapa asked the lawyer of the former Court of First Instance to convince her to return the 25 case files that had been taken away from her and she did not hand them over.

According to the Areopagite rapporteur, the Court of First Instance refused to comply with the inspectors’ instructions (7 times inspected) and ignored them as to the long delays it had and proposed to stop it permanently. In fact, Mrs. Katsimagli said that even today she has not returned 25 court cases, with trial in 2022.

What did she say in her apology?

The Trial Court claimed that a large volume of cases had been chargedwhich, combined with her inexperience and the health problems she faced, was something that resulted in the delay in issuing decisions, while later in the hearing she also cited psychological problems.

The following dialogue took place between the President of the Supreme Court and the Court of First Instance:

Flap: All of us when we entered the judiciary were inexperienced, we all faced difficulties in the early years, but we kept asking and moving forward, and the volume of cases we charged was greater than today. We were billed for 300 cases and delivery in a month and every 40 days we were accountable to our superiors for the progress of the cases and the number we were delivering. But you didn’t make decisions. Citizens have been waiting years to see your posts.

Trial judge: I respected the citizens, that’s why I didn’t take sick leaves, because of my mental state. Finally I went to a psychologist and I have overcome my problem. I am accountable to Greek society, but let me have one last chance (s.s.: Not to be fired).

Flap: You didn’t realize how much trouble you caused. Many attempts were made by the disciplinary bodies for you, but you never came to your senses. Absolute indifference and incompetence. You did not listen to your superiors who begged you to allow the court cases and you inconvenienced the citizens. You have had no sense of responsibility for 11 years. I don’t see that you have woken up from your slumber, while you were being paid normally, like all of us, harming society as a whole.

Mrs. Adeilini joined with the Areopagite rapporteur for the final dismissal of Protodikos, who was, finally, unanimously removed from the judiciary, but retaining the right to be employed by the State as an employee.