“I don’t see any constitutional obstacle to increasing the party’s entry threshold into Parliament. In the first place, the very fact that a percentage is provided for one to be able to participate in the distribution of seats and produce an MP has never been considered unconstitutional. So I wonder why the increase of the limit from 3 to 5% could be justified as unconstitutional”.

With this statement, Antonis Manitakisformer minister, emeritus professor of Constitutional Law, responded to whether it is constitutional to change the 3% limit for the entry of parties into the Parliament, speaking on the First Program 91.6 and 105.8 and on the show “The GPS of Current Affairs” with Thanos Siafakas.

“I think it is constitutional and there is no problem. From the moment we have accepted that it is constitutional, the enhanced proportionality, from the moment we have accepted that even the premium with 30 to 50 MPs in the first party for the sake of governability, I emphasize this, in order to have a government, has been accepted and it works in practice for decades now and no issue of constitutionality has arisen invoking the equality argument, I don’t see why this mere increase of the limit from 3 to 5% violates the principle of equality and the 3 percent does not anyway %» said Mr. Manitakis in detail.

As for whether such an amendment could take effect from the next Parliament or from the one after that, as required by the Constitution when the electoral system is affected, according to Mr. Manitakis, “the electoral system is not affected and I don’t think constitutionally 180 MPs and 200 MPs are needed for it to come into force with the next election”.

However, Mr. Manitakis underlined that for political and ethical reasonssuch a change needs the greatest possible consensus.

As he typically said “beyond the formal letter of the Constitution, there is a moral-politics that emerges from the Constitution, even if the Constitution does not explicitly say so, I think that the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the democratic logic for such an amendment impose the greatest possible consent, otherwise, it would be politically incorrect.”

The said amendment, however, Mr. Manitakis mentioned, could also concern the European elections of 2024, as these are done in accordance with the internal electoral legislation of the countries of the European Union, as for example the cross of preference can be changed, abolish and restore the list, there is no express prohibition from the Constitution.

Asked if the issue of the Spartans has been legally closed, Mr. Manitakis expressed his assessment that no doubt there will be objections and appeals to the Supreme Special Courtfor many and various reasons. “Possibly Kasidiaris himself will file an appeal if he wants to go to Europe, to the Court of Human Rights. He can do this and show that he is not related to the Spartans. Legally, I do not believe that the Supreme Court could now cancel the election of this party, their participation in the allocation of seats, for two reasons in my opinion. One is that in order to do so he must have solid evidence that Kasidiaris is a real leader. The Court must be convinced. I don’t think he has such convictions now, which actually proves that Kasidiaris has established, is a real leader, objective criteria. And the second is, when this party has already been allowed by the Supreme Court according to the formal criteria and the formal control that the Supreme Court does, it will be very difficult for the Supreme Court to invoke other than those it took into account . Because last time, the criteria went to the declaration of the party. The third is that at this moment in order to do something like this, in order to establish that this party is illegally participating in the electoral process, elections must be held again throughout the country. So, for legal and factual reasons, I consider it impossible for any issue to arise in the Areopagus for the Spartans” pointed out Mr. Manitakis.