Evangelos Venizelos comments on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that vindicates the former president of ELSTAT Andreas Georgiou, saying that the decision is “a stumbling block and a lesson against the unstoppable anti-memorandum conspiracy regarding the amount of the primary and fiscal deficit of 2009 and the reasons that led the country to the long adventure of memoranda”.

The comment of Mr. Venizelos:

“Georgiou v. Greece”. What does the ECtHR’s decision mean? An initial comment.

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Georgiou v. Greece published today with the former head of ELSTAT Andreas Georgiou as an applicant, who is an emblematic victim of the way the Greek judicial system operates, constitutes a crucible and a lesson in the name of the European rule of law.

It is both a crucible and a lesson against the intractable anti-memorandum conspiracy theory about the size of the primary and fiscal deficits of 2009 and the reasons that led the country to the long adventure of the memoranda. The claim that there was no reason for the country to resort to the memoranda and that the fiscal data of 2009 was cooked up, is no longer accepted politically by anyone possessing elementary seriousness. However, it still finds supporters in the area of ​​Greek Justice.

In 2017, the Court of Appeal of Athens convicted Andreas Georgiou for breach of duty and the Supreme Court rejected his application to overturn the conviction by refusing to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the meaning of the crucial provision of the Regulation governing the EUROSTAT and the national statistical authorities.

The defendant’s request to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU was rejected without reasons.

With today’s decision, the ECtHR finds that Greece, with the above decision of the Supreme Court, violated Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR, i.e. the right to a fair trial. The ECtHR reiterated its established jurisprudence according to which the omission and indeed the unjustified failure of a national court of an EU member state (which is obviously also a state party to the ECHR and the Council of Europe) to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU, even though it has a relevant obligation against Article 267 of the TFEU (such court is the CA) and even though a relevant request has been submitted, it constitutes a violation of Article 6 para. 1 ECHR, i.e. the right to a fair trial. A particularly critical issue for the relationship between the EU and the ECHR.

The ECHR leaves no room for misinterpretation of its decision. He included in his decision a special chapter on the manner in which Greece must, according to Article 46 of the ECHR, comply with the decision of Strasbourg. This must be done by repeating the procedure (reopening) before the CA, who must address the crucial pre-trial question to the CJEU. Theoretically, the CA could justify this time the rejection of the request to submit a preliminary question to Luxembourg, but let’s hope that another composition of the competent formation of the CA will preserve, at least to the limit, the elementary international credibility of the Greek Justice.”