“Obviously circumvention of the Constitution” Evangelos Venizelos considers the manipulations of the majority in the pre -trial committee and points out the risk of invalidity, which are controlled at national and international level as the Step reports. The government obviously knows, he adds, that if the Council of the Special Court considers that Christos Triantopoulou’s referral before him is invalid, a situation “inappropriate politically from it” will arise. Regarding the forthcoming arrangement of the Ministry of Justice in order not to be limited to the offenses, he reminds us that it cannot have retroactive effect for persons investigated for the Tempe tragedy, from which it does not exclude Kostas Karamanlis. “The only safe solution is what I suggested that parliamentary procedures are completed by the end of the current second session,” he points out.

Christos Triantopoulos requested that the preliminary examination of the Parliamentary Committee be bypassed so that his case would be brought before the “natural” or rather legitimate judge. The government and the parliamentary majority solemnly accepted the choice that Professor Nikos Alivizatos had also proposed. Opposition parties as well as victims’ families react strongly, considering that it is a approach that violates the Constitution. What is your position as an author of the relevant constitutional provision?

“I understand political expediency and needs, but I give you a legal answer, as I would give it to a demanding postgraduate audience. According to paragraph 3 of Article 86 of the Constitution, a proposal for prosecution shall be submitted by at least thirty Members. The House, in its decision, which is taken by the absolute majority of the entire number of Members, sets up a special parliamentary committee for a preliminary examination, otherwise the proposal is rejected as manifestly unfounded. The finding of the committee referred to in the preceding subparagraph is introduced into the plenary session of the House, which decides on whether or not prosecution. The decision is taken by the absolute majority of the entire number of Members. “

While now what happened?

“In this case, the proposal of the thirty Members was submitted and the overwhelming majority was decided to set up a special parliamentary committee for a preliminary examination. Consequently, in order for the Triantopoulos case to the Judicial Council and the Areopagite Investigator of the Special Court, a Commission’s findings must be submitted and the Plenary of the House decides to prosecute.

Indeed, Executive Law 3126/2003 stipulates in paragraph 3 of Article 6 that “the decision on criminal prosecution must determine and specify the criminal act and criminal provision that provides for it and functions as immunity if the Minister also has the parliament”. If these conditions are not met, the prosecution is suffering from invalidity and this may be determined by the Council of the Special Court, whose five members (three from the Supreme Court and two by the Council of State) will be drawn. “

Do you think the government overlooks this risk?

“The government is obviously aware that if the Council of the Special Court considers that the criminal prosecution (that is, Mr Triantopoulos’s referral before him) is invalid, there will be a politically unacceptable situation from it. It is therefore trying to do the preliminary examination committee and in plenary the minimum procedural acts that give the impression that the claims referred to in Article 86 (3) of the Constitution and Article 6 (3) of Law 3126/2003 are met. This explains the position of the government majority that it is sufficient for the case file forwarded to the House of Representatives by the Larissa Public Prosecutor’s Office and on the basis of which he was prosecuted for the same case to Mr Triantopoulos’ participants.

This will not examine witnesses and no other documents and other information will be sought. But Mr Triantopoulos is called upon to provide the type of Article 244 Code of Criminal Procedure. But all this “simplified” process must conclude a finding in favor of prosecution for specific acts and on the basis of a specific criminal provision. This finding must be discussed (feared under conditions of extreme political tension) in plenary and secretly vote on the prosecution of Mr Triantopoulos with at least 151 votes. It is an obvious circumvention of the Constitution, that is, for a description of the press and for violating its substance in the field of criminal procedure that is largely transparent in invalidity that are judged nationally and internationally. “

The other view considers that this is facilitated and accelerates the reference to the political person to his natural judge

“The opposition stated is that the circumvention, that is, the side -by -side violation of the Constitution, is done for a” good purpose “, to accelerate the referral to the” natural “judge, that is, to the Areopagite investigator and the Council of the Special Court and to avoid the Court of Justice. This approach is undoubtedly communicative, but it is not legally correct. It is heard as reasonable by those who want ministers to be judged as well as citizens directly by justice, and even by the common criminal court and not the 13 -member Special Court, without even a pre -trial in Parliament.

However, this approach will only be a formal prosecution for the misdemeanor of the breach of duty without the risk of expanding other heavier offenses and other political persons and the expectation of the government is now the exemption of Mr Triantopoulos with a parliament. And all this for a side issue and not for the death of the 57 victims of Tempi. After all, if the majority wanted to be held immediately a judicial and not a parliamentary body, it could set up the Three -Member Advisory Council of Prosecutors provided for in Article 5 (2) of Law 3126/2003, which is dealt with before the Plenary of the House decides to set up a parliamentary committee here.

Today’s handling of pre -cresting has been paralleled with those done to the respective Novartis committee. Do you think they are correlated?

“In 2018, in the framework of the Novartis case, the Preliminary Inquiry Committee, again with the narrative” All to the Natural Judge “, proposed that the” hoodlum “file be sent back to the well -known prosecutor’s office considering that there is no jurisdiction of the House but not even the Special Court. And then they tried to include this in the Constitution afterwards, but failed. Unfortunately, institutional lessons were not lessons. “

At the Congress of the Idea Circle you said that if there is a question of prosecution and other minister for Tempi, in order to avoid interpretive challenge of the time in which the House can exercise its competence, parliamentary procedures must be completed until it must be completed until this A related decree before the extreme point in time on the eve of the first Monday of October, so the next meeting must begin during the Constitution. Why did you do this warning?

“With the 2001 revision, the time within which the House could prosecute against the minister has doubled and it was stipulated that this time is the end of the second session of the period that begins after the offense was committed. This could be done for decades by the end of the first session. The change was considered significant by all parties and therefore constitutionally guaranteed, and until then the issue was regulated by executive law. The revision of 2019 and a wide majority amended Article 86 (3) of the Constitution and the time limit for the exercise of the relevant jurisdiction of the House was abolished. “

But the executive law stayed the same

“Executive Law 3126/2003 over the years has not been amended and provides in Article 3 (2) that ‘the offense of the acts of ministers referred to in Article 1 (1), is eliminated at the conclusion of the second regular meeting of the parliamentary period that begins after the commitment of the Court of Appeal, if not then Against the Minister, as defined in this law. ” It is argued by some in the scientific dialogue that the abolition of the subparagraph of Article 86 (3) of the Constitution on the limit of the House of Representatives of the House of Representatives, shall, in the abolition of Article 3 of Law 3126/2003, abolish the abolition of Article 3126/2003, or that it has become unconstitutional and neglected,

However, from 1864 to 2001 the Constitution did not provide for the limit of the time of jurisdiction of the House, but this was foreseen in the executive law, as is still the case now. In addition, while the Constitution from 2001 to 2019 referred to the time limit for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the House (“Parliament may exercise it referred to in paragraph 1 until the end of the Second Regular Summit”), Law 3126/2003 provides that it is “eliminated”. Finally, the negligence of a more favorable substantive criminal provision as an unconstitutional can confront the fundamental rule of the standardization of the criminal phenomenon under Article 7 of the Constitution and international human rights law. It is not as simple as the neglect of other unconstitutional laws. The government is now announcing its intention to amend the executive law, but the provision is substantive criminal law and retroactive power is prohibited. Such a modification in 2025 does not solve any interpretation. So the only safe solution is what I suggested that parliamentary procedures are completed by the end of the current Second Session. And I am not referring to Mr. Triantopoulos but to the basic and major event of the Tempi. “

Are you referring to Kostas Karamanlis?

“Obviously he was the responsible minister.”