On the occasion of the recent document of the Deputy Minister of Justice, Ioannis Bouga, which he sent to the administrations of the courts and prosecutors’ offices of the country and addresses written recommendations and instructions, the presidency of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors (EDE), in its announcement, states that “the bodies of the executive power cannot direct instructions to the administrations of the courts, as recently happened with regard to the staffing of the parallel and regional seats, as such actions constitute an impermissible interference in the judicial work”.

In particular, the EDE announcement is as follows:

“The Presidium of the Union held a Board of Directors meeting yesterday. in which it was unanimously decided that:

In accordance with the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary enshrined in Articles 26 and 87 et seq. of the Constitution, judicial officials enjoy personal and functional independence, and the actors of other state functions must refrain from actions that can be perceived as attempt to influence the judicial work (so Diok. OlAP 2/2024).

It is noted that judicial work is understood not only to be purely judicial, but also that of the administration of courts and prosecutors’ offices, the responsibility for the operation of which belongs exclusively to the persons elected or appointed by the KODKDL. Therefore, the bodies of the executive power cannot direct suggestions to the administrations of the courts, as recently happened with regard to the staffing of the parallel and regional seats, as such actions constitute an impermissible interference in the judicial work.

Furthermore, in essence we consider that the presence of judicial officials in parallel and regional court seats, after the abolition of the Magistrates’ Courts, on a daily basis, is neither feasible nor necessary. Especially when the Ministry does not pay the accommodation and travel expenses of judicial officials who move. It is not possible because in this way in many cases the central Court of First Instance will not be able to function smoothly. And it is not necessary, because in the exceptional cases of an emergency in a regional seat, the issue can be resolved as it has been for decades in similar cases by consultation of the administration of the first court with the requesting party or the lawyer. The waste of manpower and working hours runs counter to the logic of the legislator for the consolidation of the first degree of jurisdiction and negates the efforts to speed up the jurisdictional work.

On the contrary, we believe that since there are regional seats, the director of the first court should ensure the presence of a service president in them for the adjudication of temporary orders, payment orders, the frequency of which (daily or a certain day of the week) will depend on the needs of the specific regional seat, but also the service capabilities (sufficient number of serving judges).

The prior consultation of the head of the court with the relevant Bar Association is possible (see document number 1922/9-9-2024 of the President of the CA).

Finally, we point out that the cooperation of the bodies of Justice presupposes the respect of the distinct role of each one and the due and deed recognition of their value.

Therefore, references to “regular” judges and not on behalf of the leadership of the Ministry of Justice create false impressions, discredit the contribution and the important work that the former justices of the peace have offered to date, as well as their institutional role as judicial officers”.