The former minister and constitutionalist Evangelos Venizelos expressed a clear position on the constitutionality of the amendment brought by the government regarding the Kasidiaris bloc, in statements to SKAI, stressing that there is also no question of interfering with the decision of the judges, as their number is increasing.

“This whole scene, the public reaction of Mr. Tzanerikos, for an imminent legislative regulation, the public dialogue with the government, with the minister of the interior and then the resignation, which is an act of protest, alienates – violates the separation of powers and it shows that Mr. Tzanerikos had an opinion which was very strong and which he would obviously like to impose through the procedural mechanisms he had at his disposal. This is something institutionally unprecedented and unimaginable.

I said yesterday, in a statement of mine and before his resignation, that Mr. Tzanerikos now has a reason to abstain, or in any case there is a reason for exception, so he would not be able to participate in the judicial formation that judges these issues, that is, the proclamation of the institutions and the exclusion of a party from the elections”, he emphasized and continued:

“In my opinion no, there is no question of intervention because the number of judges is being expanded. The Government’s amendment does not suffer from unconstitutionality, but you will allow me to say that the issue is not constitutionality or unconstitutionality, but more generally the safety of the choices we make, of the legislative arrangements. The arrangements are not only checked for their constitutionality, but possibly also for their possible conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights.

It will bear the brunt of the people’s European court, but some arguments that are publicly stated and some facts that are currently recorded in public life, will be used by Mr. Kanellopoulos or anyone else interested, so that after the elections, the appeal will be made for the annulment of the elections to the highest special court, the Electoral Court, and to make between first and possibly second elections and a European appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. So I said yesterday that the issue is not that the current government amendment, which will be voted on tomorrow, suffers from unconstitutionality or that it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, but that we would be deprived of any argument of any claim to a political crisis if it were chosen an existing formation, which leaves no room for discussion, is the plenary session as we know it, the Supreme Court finally expresses itself in its plenary session.

Here there is a question of creeping objection to the constitutionality of the regulation on the part of the stakeholders. The constitution says that when the supreme courts judge questions of constitutionality and are brought to a judgment, for unconstitutionality, only their plenary session becomes competent.

Of course, each department can deny the constitutionality, that is to say that the prefecture is constitutional. But you realize that when some people say, even politically, even journalistically, even for pre-election use, that the regulation is unconstitutional and lacks democratic rights, there must be a strong response from the state of justice and the struggling democracy, and it would be preferable if it was given by the plenary. But it is not unconstitutional to go to the department.

Unfortunately some take this as a pre-election advertisement and promotion of this format. When every government that has the legislative initiative handles such delicate issues so critical for democracy and the rule of law, it must be very careful, its movements must be very mature and measured, we must know what we are doing. Even in the SYRIZA amendment, I must say, it is foreseen that the A1 department is responsible. When these were said two months ago, we all knew that the A1 section and each section has a five-member composition, so we knew that it was made up of 5 judges, so I would ask everyone to be more calm and mature and more willing to listen to the opinions of those who know about the issues that’s all. Some people believe they know, and we all sometimes believe we know a subject, we always need to hear another opinion, because we may be led to more mature choices.

So to sum up, the regulation as introduced is not unconstitutional or contrary to the European convention of human rights, but we would deprive the opponents of democracy of any argument, if the regulations were done correctly and if the formation was the full court.

It caused me, from the point of view of democratic sensibility and from the point of view of gentlemen of justice, a very unpleasant, not to say painful, impression. I don’t want to enter into matters of private life, but the contradiction of his brothers, who are healers of justice, says something. I know Mr. Kanellopoulos, when I was Minister of Justice in 1996 he was the head of the Athens Court of First Instance Prosecutor’s Office, I also know him as a deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court, who had the reasonable ambition to become a prosecutor as well, I know the expressions he has expressed from time to time and I think that now he has made a choice which will be the criterion for the evaluation of his entire journey. If he wanted to be evaluated like this and recorded like this, he succeeded, but I don’t think this is a correct choice for history, let’s put it that way, and certainly this must be very troubling to the working judicial officers about how they should behave and when they are active, but also when they leave and are now retired or honorary, because they still carry the burden of their judicial capacity”.