“The decision only concerns the financial damage part. It does not enter into the substance of the appeal. But I must say that there is wording that the appeal is manifestly unfounded. Of course, two years can pass from this to the final trial of the case and that is the big problem. And this causes great concern” stressed the Mayor of Athens, Haris Doukas, speaking to ERTNews referring to the decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens according to which the temporary operation of the club in Vouliagmenis was decided, which had been sealed at the end of October after the party that led drunken students to the hospital.

Mr. Duke added that “the final closure based on our legal services and the unanimous decision of our Municipal Council was done exactly because in addition to what we all saw with the drinks, the license had also been illegally transferred to a third party». Still explained the illegal transfer “It gave us the option for the final closure and that’s why we used this option. And let me also say that this documentation was not included in the judgment of the court, but only the part of the financial damage, and let me also say that we were not called, even though we had requested the hearing”.

“[…] we had immediately sent a letter seeing the problem and asking for legislative intervention. Why should we say that in other cases when we close shops for other reasons, table seating, noise pollution, there can be a request for a suspension in the temporary measures and the temporary ones are won and a total distortion is created. And so we said that legislative intervention is needed so that in these cases where we have minor children and alcohol, there is no possibility for anyone to request a suspension».

Regarding the reaction of Kostas Bakoyannis, who stated, among other things, that the sealing decision is unjustified and unclear, the Mayor of Athens said that “he is wrong and we also told him in the municipal council and I am really sad because he and his municipal faction voted for it and even congratulated him and said the documentation is very strong and he is wrong because he has to read the decision and the decision does not it says neither the unsubstantiated nor that it is unclear. He says exactly the opposite, that we are not going into the substance and even says that the appeal is manifestly unfounded, but we are not going into the substance and are only concerned with irreparable financial damage. So what? That until there is a final judgment there is a financial loss and for this reason we are withdrawing the decision[…]».