Laura Kovesi continues her feud with the government, this time over the renewal of the terms of her Greek counterparts.
By Ersi Papadaki
The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court is expected to hear today the appeal filed by European Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the two-year—rather than five-year, as requested by the European Prosecutor—of the terms of office of the three Greek prosecutors. Regardless of the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, all signs point to the case being referred to the European Court of Justice, as at least indicated by Ms. Kovesi’s intentions.
Reports even indicate that the European prosecutor plans to appear in person today before the judges of the Supreme Court, since she is the only one who can personally defend her appeal against the decision to extend the terms of Popi Papandreou, Charikleia Thanos, and Dionysis Mouzakis, that is, the three Greek judicial officials serving at the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
From the very beginning Ms. Kovesi had expressed her opposition to this decision, which she in fact blames on the government, continuing her open confrontation with the political leadership. A confrontation that initially began with the case of Contract 717 following the accident at Tempi, but culminated in the case of agricultural subsidies from OPEKEPE and the case files she sent to the Hellenic Parliament, implicating ministers, other government officials, and members of Parliament.
It is now clear that the European Public Prosecutor is overstepping her role and this confrontation with the Greek government now leaves her vulnerable to criticism that her interventions have political—or, rather, opposition-oriented—characteristics.
This is precisely what government officials have maintained from the very beginning, but which provoked reactions mainly from the opposition, which rashly accused the government of interfering in the European prosecutor’s work. However, the way in which Ms. Kovesi continues to act clearly shows that the problem is real and that the judicial official has, if nothing else, her own reasons for acting in this manner and opposing every decision of the Greek government.
Moreover, she constantly comments even on government initiatives, such as the one to revise Article 86 of the Constitution regarding the law on ministerial responsibility. And at the end of the day, she does not respect the separation of powers, which is a cornerstone of democracy and a well-governed state.
Of course, Ms. Kovesi may be accustomed to this from Romania, where widespread corruption —which she herself is supposedly fighting—has eroded the political system and its foundations. Romania, however, is not Greece, and this is not an arbitrary claim on the part of the government or any other domestic actor, but rather from the European Commission’s official reports on the rule of law. Because the Commission itself has acknowledged that Greece has taken very significant steps and made progress inregarding institutions and the rule of law under this government, and the picture Ms. Kovesi is attempting to paint is completely at odds with this reality.
In other words, the European Prosecutor can neither and should not interfere in our internal affairs nor act in a politically motivated manner. It is she who, as a judicial official and, respecting her role in Europe, must respect the separation of powers and the decisions of either the Greek judiciary or the country’s legally elected government.
Her stance, and above all its insistence on overstepping its role in matters concerning Greece leaves room for interpretation and, above all, suspicions that it is serving, whether unintentionally or not, specific petty political interests. And this holds true regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision and the outcome of this specific case involving the tenure of the Greek prosecutors serving under Ms. Kovesi’s direction.
