“The European Court of First Instance is an institution of the rule of law and is not abolished by law,” responds to Adonis Georgiadis by the Union of Judges and Prosecutors.
Earlier, the Health Minister described the recent files that arrived in Parliament as “ridiculous”, while indirectly accusing Ms. Papandreou of “internal political games.”
The Union of Judges and Prosecutors, in response to the minister, stressed that
““trust in the judiciary cannot be a’ la carte”, adding that “the threats issued by the Minister of Health, as to the legislative possibility of abolishing an institution that has produced important work, but now seems to be a nuisance, combined with the operation of attributing political and personal objectives to the competent prosecutor, constitute a direct interference in judicial work”.
In detail, the statement to Adonis Georgiades:
In response to recent statements by the Minister of Health, Mr. Adonis Georgiades, who in yesterday’s TV show stated in words that “the institution of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is not a serious institution“, that “it is a simple law of the Greek state. Tomorrow we vote and that’s it!” while then publicly accusing the Greek European Public Prosecutor of processing a file concerning political persons by sending it to the Parliament “for the purpose of judging the renewal of her mandate and in order to blackmail the renewal of her mandate” otherwise, because it is “legally irrelevant”, the Association of Judges and Prosecutors should remind the Minister that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is an institution of the rule of law, It is governed by supra-legislative provisions (EU Regulation 2017/1939), which means that it is not abolished by law, its Greek office is composed of Greek prosecutors who are constitutionally shielded in order to exercise their duties freely and independently and without fear or political expediency.
There is no need to speak specifically about this particular colleague, whose legal training, ethics, and experience in important cases are both well-known and unquestionable. We need to remind, however, that trust in the judiciary cannot be a’ la carte.
Those exercising executive power have an obligation, by their words and deeds, to demonstrate their trust by refraining from statements or actions that undermine the authority of its officials.And the threats issued by the Minister of Health, as to the legislative possibility of abolishing an institution that has produced significant work, but now appears to be a nuisance, coupled with the business of attributing political and personal targets to the Attorney General in charge, constitute direct interference with a judicial function.
