What was the proposal to the Supreme Court – What effect will it have, if it is accepted – The decisions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on the cuts – What did the rapporteur support, what is the most likely decision scenario
By Ioanna Mandrou
The lack of competence of the Supreme Special Court in the case of requests for pension cuts was supported during today’s discussion of the case by the rapporteur of this supreme court, State Counselor Irini Stavroulakis.
In the event, which is estimated to be extremely likely, that her proposal, which clearly refers to substantial legal issues, is accepted, then a decision will not be issued on the substance of the pension requests. In other words, the Supreme Special Court that met will judge itself incompetent, with the result that pensioners’ requests for cuts in Christmas gifts, Easter and leave allowance for only eleven months (June 2015 May 2016) will not be satisfied.
After all, the trial at the AED, Supreme Court provided for by the constitution, when there are, on the same subject, conflicting decisions from supreme courts, in order to issue a decision the basic condition is indeed that the considered decisions are contradictory. That is to say, some things for one to judge and others for others.
In this case, the case that reached the AED, chaired by the president of the CoE, Evangelia Nika, concerned decisions by the Council of State on the one hand and by the Supreme Court on the other.
The Council of State, in the context of decisions of its plenary session on the so-called Katrougalou law, deemed unconstitutional the cuts in gifts (Christmas, Easter and leave) for the main pensions only for the eleven months. That is, from June 2015 to May 2016.
And because of this, with his decision, he obliged the state, the government in other words, to pay this money that corresponds to this period of time only.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the cuts in the private sector for gifts and allowances are constitutional, but on supplementary pensions for reasons that concerned, as it considered, measures of general public interest.
Therefore, the recommendation to the AED was based on the essence of the matter. That is, if these decisions are really opposite, that is, one judges some things and the other judges others.
Thus, with a series of arguments and a detailed analysis of these decisions, the rapporteur in the trial was led to the conclusion-proposal, that the AED is not competent and should not issue a decision on any decision on the matter, therefore should not take any position, because it has no competence, on requests for pension cuts.
The decision of the AED, to be clarified, is not subject to any reversal, nor is any case that reaches this point retried.
It should also be noted that even if the proposal is not accepted, there are no real scenarios of vindication of all the pensioners, as such a thing is not decided in this particular trial, nor is there any question that the AED’s decision will lead to a fiscal derailment.
In any case, the decision is expected in the coming months.
Source: Skai
I have worked as a journalist for over 10 years, and my work has been featured on many different news websites. I am also an author, and my work has been published in several books. I specialize in opinion writing, and I often write about current events and controversial topics. I am a very well-rounded writer, and I have a lot of experience in different areas of journalism. I am a very hard worker, and I am always willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done.
