Appealed to the Council of State Prodomos Emfietzoglou and the party “Patriotic Union – Prodomos Emfietzoglou”, requesting the annulment of the decision of the A1 Political Department of the Supreme Court which declared the parties and approved their right to participate in last Sunday’s parliamentary elections, regarding the part that did not allow his party to participate in the electoral process .

It is recalled that Mr. Emfietzoglou’s party was “cut off” by Areio Pagos on the grounds that it has committed name theft of the central core of its name from the “Patriotic Union-Hellenic People’s Gathering” (EL.LAS.) party and that he has appropriated a national symbol of the Vergina Sun (sixteen-pointed sun) as his party’s badge.

He requests from the SC to annul both the decision of the Plenary Session of the A1 Department of the Supreme Court (1/2023) by which he was not allowed to participate in the national elections, and the decision of the same Department of the Supreme Civil Court (16/2023) by which the objection of recall and review of the decision declaring the parties (i.e. the first decision 1/2023) was rejected.

He argues that the decision of the Supreme Court on the declaration of the parties is against the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the constitutional principle of proportionality, the constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in free elections and the electoral law, as well as that there was a bad constitution of the A1 Department of the Supreme Court that decided the declaration of the parties.

At the same time, it states that for the exclusion of a party from the electoral process, there is no provision for a remedy, i.e. for the party to be able to defend itself before the Supreme Court, despite the threatened ban on its participation in the elections, but neither does it have the right to prior hearing enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution and the ECHR.

With reference to the formation of the Plenary of the A1 Political Department of the Supreme Court, it states that the composition was not legal, as a result of which the principle of fair trial provided by both the Constitution and the ECHR was violated, as the declaration of the parties had to done by the 5-member composition of the Department and not by the Plenary of the Department.

Finally, he clarifies that he appealed to the Supreme Court as the A1 Department of the Supreme Court is responsible for the declaration of the parties as an administrative body and not as a judicial formation, with the consequence that its decisions have the status of an individual administrative act, which is appealed to the Supreme Court.