By Ioanna Mandrou

A public position, which is being done for the first time, is taken by the vice-president of the Supreme Court and president of the Supreme Court Department who will be called upon to judge whether or not to participate in the elections for the party founded by Ilias Kasidiaris, characterizing the additional regulation brought by the government “as photographic”.

Mr. Christos Janerikos top judicial officer, vice president of the Supreme Court who is to preside over the judicial formation that will declare the parties that will take part in the elections, publicly takes a position on the regulation of the government with his statement in ieidiseis.

His action is considered unprecedented as he is the key person for the imminent decision of the Supreme Court on such a serious matter.

His public position has caused a sensation not only within the judiciary as it is perhaps the first time that a supreme judge publicly states, before the Court’s conference, what he believes, essentially revealing his vote.

The statement of the AP Vice President, Christos Tzanerikos, in detail

“Based on the amendment – addition of the Ministry of the Interior, which amends par. 1 of article 32 of the Presidential Decree. 26/2012, the unprecedented for judicial time regulation is introduced, which institutes the plenary session of the political division of the Supreme Court. Unprecedented, since it constitutes a direct intervention in the operation of the Supreme Court, since both according to article 23 of the previous Law 1756/1988, and according to article 27 of the already valid Law 4938/2022: “…Each department is constituted by the President and four (4) areopagites…” and not from the totality of areopagites, who serve in it, whose number, it should be noted, is not the same in all departments, but can be changed, by relevant decisions of Plenary Session of the Supreme Court or in extraordinary cases by acts of the president of the Supreme Court, which are approved by the Plenary Session. There has never been a Plenary meeting of a department made up of all its judges. It should also be noted that in the event of a tie in a “Plenary” section with an even number of Judges, since multi-member compositions (Article 4 of Law 1756/1988 and already in force 4938/2022) must have an odd number, it should be introduced (in union) arrangement that the opinion of its president prevails.

The regulation, which is introduced with the disputed amendment, despite its apparent justification, that is to say “shielding any decision of the Supreme Court” for the declaration or non-party, referred to in article 32 of the P.D. 26/2012, so that it cannot be disputed, it captures, photographically, the distrust and lack of trust in my person, on the part of the government, which had the relevant legislative initiative, regarding the exercise of my discretion to define the ( five-member) composition of the department, of which I am president. Are the hundreds of thousands of decisions of the divisions of the Supreme Court, which have been issued or will be issued by their five-member compositions and not by their plenary sessions, not shielded and may be disputed? The second addition, in which the A1 department of the CA, can request data to document its relevant judgment, from the – as the case may be – competent or other authorities was completely unnecessary, since with the one already in force, since last February, regulation, the department also checks ex officio the assistance of the declaration conditions, In the context, therefore, of its ex officio investigation, from where would it draw the data, to document its judgement? from the neighborhood grocer?

Finally, it should not escape our attention that the Ministry of Internal Affairs, announcing the amendment on an ERT broadcast on Thursday (06/04), intervened, impermissibly, directly in the judgment of the A1 section of the CA, after declaring, among other things: “It cannot there is a deep contradiction, on the one hand the criminal department of justice (note: he forgot to say below the Supreme Court) condemns him (including Kasidiaris) as the leader of a criminal organization and another department of justice also comes , the A1 of the Supreme Court, who says he is a political leader”. In other words, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, indirectly, but clearly indicated to the Judges of the A1 department what their judgment should be, on the specific matter”.

At the same time, the deputy prosecutor AP e.t. Anastasios Kanellopouloswho took over as head of the Greeks party of Ilias Kasidiaris, with his new statement, sets the tone for what will follow, as he states: “The Voridis regulation, not only does not deter us, but makes us even more stubborn, to continue the match!”.