Ioanna Mandrou

Abstaining from his duties due to his public position on the government’s legislative regulation regarding the trial of the case for the party of Ilias Kasidiaris, he calls the vice-president of the Ario, Pagos Christos Tzanerikos, who made his vote public, Evangelos Venizelos .

In his harsh statement, Mr. Venizelos characterizes as “institutionally unimaginable” the dialogue opened by the public position of the vice-president of the Supreme Court, which received a response from the Minister of the Interior, Makis Voridis.

Answer of Voridis to the vice-president of the AP: “In democracies the Parliament legislates and not every judge”

The statement of Evangelos Venizelos:

“The public reaction of the Vice-President of the Supreme Court – President of the A1 Department to the legislative initiative of the Government which determines the judicial formation that will judge the compliance with the conditions of article 32 of the electoral legislation (PD 26/2012, as applicable) and the his institutionally unthinkable public dialogue with the Minister of the Interior, make necessary immediate moves that will not allow anyone to raise, at any level, questions about the fundamental rights to the legal judge, judicial protection and hearing and legal trial (articles 8 and 20 par.1 Comp., article 6 par.1 ECHR).

I propose that the existing major formation of the Supreme Court, its Plenary, be legally defined as competent, according to the regulations applicable to it. I consider it self-evident that Mr. Vice-President of the CA will make a declaration of abstention from any relevant procedure».

Answer of Voridis to AP vice-president

“In democratic states, legislation is the responsibility of the Parliament and not the choice of each judge“, says the Minister of the Interior, Makis Voridis, in response to the unprecedented statement of the vice-president of the Supreme Court, Christos Tzanerikos, regarding the regulation-block of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Kasidiaris party.

He also notes that the composition of the A1 Department is a given and is not affected by the government’s legislative initiative, while he criticizes SYRIZA saying that it is inexplicable its attitude that prefers for such an issue a limited composition of the court instead of the plenary of the judicial formation ».

The statement of the Minister of the Interior, Makis Voridis:

“In relation to the statements of the President of the A1 Department of the Supreme Court, the following are noted:

The Government respects the independence of the Judiciary and does not oppose it.

We point out that for a major upcoming crisis concerning the participation in the elections of parties whose founding members or candidates or actual leaders have been convicted of the crime of leading a criminal organization, the Government’s position is simple:

more eyes, more valid judgement, without any exception of a judge of the competent department from the composition.

The legislative initiative of the Government shields the judgment of the Justice, whatever it may be.

It is emphasized that the composition of the A1 Department is a given and is in no way affected by the governmental legislative initiative. In any case, it is self-evident that in democratic states the legislation belongs to the competence of the Parliament and not to the choice of each judge.

It is rather inexplicable the attitude of SYRIZA which prefers for such an issue a limited composition of the court instead of the plenary session of the judicial formation.

As far as I am concerned, I have never discounted the judgment of Justice, on the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that I obviously cannot prejudge it, but I explained the reason that necessitated the already existing legislation. Without it, there would be no possibility of the relevant judgment by the A1 Department of the Supreme Court».

The statement of Tzanerikos

It is noted that the public position of Mr. Tzanerikos has caused a sensation, 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.

His statement in detail:

“Based on the amendment – addition of the Ministry of the Interior, which amends paragraph 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, as 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 all the areopagites who serve in it, the number of which, it should be noted, is not the same in all departments, but can be changed, with relevant decisions of the Plenary of the Supreme Court or in extraordinary cases by acts of the president of the CA, approved by its Plenary. 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” on the declaration or not of parties, 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”. That is, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, indirectly, but clearly indicated to the Judges of the A1 section what their judgment should be, on the specific issue».

Mr. Tzanerikos typically mentions: “The regulation, which is introduced with the controversial amendment, despite its apparent justification, that is to say the “shielding of any decision of the Supreme Court” on the declaration or non-party, referred to in article 32 of P.D. 26/2012, so that it cannot be disputed, it captures, photographically, the mistrust and lack of trust in my person, on the part of the government”.

At the same time, the deputy prosecutor AP e.t. Anastasios Kanallopoulos, who took over as head of Elias Kasidiaris’ Greeks party, with his new statement, sets the tone for what will follow, as he states: “The Voridis arrangement, not only does not deter us, but makes us even more stubborn, in order to let’s continue the fight!”.