In an extensive post on Facebook today (18/4), Adonis Georgiades provides a detailed and incisive assessment of the institution of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Specifically, he argues that, despite its institutional importance for European integration, its operation so far in Greece creates serious political and institutional issues.
Specifically, he states: “From the day the European Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to send a request to Parliament to lift the immunity of the 11 members of the New Democracy Party based on their telephone conversations with OPEKEPE officials, a major public debate on the nature of this institution began. As everything in Greece is politicised and we are divided into pro and anti groups and so it happened here. You know my views on the institution and I do not hide them. On the Authority, I considered from the outset that its establishment was a positive first step for a European Confederation and I voted for the relevant legislation. But because I am a true Europeanist and not a latecomer (I now see various anti-memorandum people who did their utmost to get us out of the EU by voting for Tsipras and going to the Square of the Agonists now tearing their clothes in favour of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office), I will tell you the truth. Those of us who believe in Europe don’t lick it and leave it out of criticism. We want it to be better and so we criticise its institutions and its functioning. The EU remains the best place on the planet to live, but in the process mistakes will be made and decisions will be tested in practice and some will work and some will not. We will move forward by correcting our mistakes as well.
Now let’s go to this institution and what exactly it is and whether I am right in saying that we can get out if we want to or it is absolutely compulsory as others say etc. who has the power to renew the terms of Greek prosecutors etc.
A) the decision of a State to join this institution is not a simple decision at all. For a State to exist, to have what the Romans called an imperium, it must necessarily have three monopolies. Monopoly in the Executive power, i.e. in the Government. The Government belongs exclusively to the State. Monopoly in the Legislative power, i.e. the Parliament always belongs only to the State and Monopoly in the Judicial power. That is, the State determines the manner in which justice is administered in its territory. Later Max Weber added to the definition and Monopoly on violence, only the State has legitimate violence under its laws.
Accession to the institution of the European Public Prosecutor breaks the Monopoly of the State, in this case the Hellenic Republic, on the Judiciary. It is not a simple decision and hides several risks. The way in which this institution is implemented, especially in its first steps, is therefore crucial both for the longevity of the institution itself and for the course of European integration. Here I want to be honest, even before the case of our Members, I thought it had got off to a very bad start and I will explain why. The greatest danger of all is that of creating competition between any domestic institutions of law and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office should not be seen as competing but complementary to domestic judicial institutions. It was not set up to discredit domestic judicial institutions and do what they supposedly did not do, but to focus on European issues with greater commitment and resources. For months now, and as a rule by the most anti-European forces in the country, either on the occasion of the OPEKEPE or the Tempi etc., a distorted and very dismissive image of the Greek justice system has been projected in the media. Suddenly the ‘only honest prosecutors’ are the Europeans. Ms. Covessi will finally “punish” the “bad” politicians “protected” by domestic judges, because they are also the judges in the game… And so now we are waiting as the “Messiah” of catharsis for Ms. Koscesi and her associates to put order in Greece. Excuse me, but there has never been a greater denigration and insult to Greek judges and prosecutors than the cultivation of this image. I am surprised that their respected Union is not disturbed by this obvious lie. Obviously neither Ms. Covesi nor her associates are responsible for this image here, but the selective leakage of information, such as the prosecution of Mr. Tsiaras, Mr. Skreka and Ms. Arampatzi in a newspaper and complex that predominantly cultivates this image systematically, is their responsibility. The fact that they did not find a way to cut the knife out is their responsibility. If this narrative continues at some point in the future, the domestic and European legal order will inevitably clash. Those who were anti-memorandum and fought to get us out of the EU probably seek to do so. So again there will be a crisis in our relations with the EU which they like. But we, who fought to keep Greece in Europe, have a duty to prevent this and my attitude of warning and pointing out this problem is not anti-European but pro-European. And at the European level, for example, the chasing of the President of the Commission, for example, for vaccines with Pfizer for silly accusations, can be seen from the point of view that no one is above the law in Europe (which is a good thing) but again, it did not take into account how much water in the mill of anti-Europeanism finally poured and reinforced the conspiracy theories against the European institutions. So the institution’s constitution as such is right, but the way in which the natural subjects manage the power they have been given will decide a lot for the institution and for Europe. I want the institution to succeed, but if it continues to ignore the political implications of their various actions, it will fail. That is what I predict. Failure will be a loss for Europe and a setback, I sincerely hope that they will eventually succeed in their mission.
B) This antagonism that I mentioned before in Greece was strongly reinforced by the de facto questioning of the sovereign and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Council of the Supreme Court, as to who appoints and renews the term of office of Greek prosecutors in that institution. What exactly happened; the College of Commissioners of Public Prosecutors renewed Ms Papandreou’s term of office without consulting the Supreme Court last November. When this decision became known, this renewal was not accepted. Already various people are coming out and contradicting me, but if they looked harder they would know that in the end it was Mrs. Covesi herself who sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking for the renewal of the term of office of Mrs. Papandreou and two other prosecutors, so she herself recognised the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the people concerned applied to the Supreme Judicial Council of the Supreme Court to have their term of office renewed at the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, they themselves recognised the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Sound the alarm. In common, those and constitutionalists who rushed to criticize me had not just done the reporting that I did. Whether or not their terms of office will be renewed I do not know, as it is none of my business, but I do know that the decision on whether or not to renew them will be taken by the Supreme Court in May. I have confidence in its judgment, because I have absolute confidence in the Greek justice system. And again, quite collectively, all the anti-European forces in the country have rallied against the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court….and again the “good” European prosecutors and the “bad” Greek judges….the same fiercely undemocratic and anti-European fairy tale.
C) as far as the cases relevant to the Parliament are concerned, things are absolutely clear. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to send ridiculous cases causing major political issues. All the legal experts with no exception are well aware that there can be no conviction on this evidence. I stress that all cases will either end up being filed or ultimately in acquittal. I hazard this prediction. The only question I have is why there was all this behavior on the part of the prosecutor. She can’t have failed to realize that leaking to the press, especially the fiercely oppositional press, would create political problems. It cannot be that her decision to come in waves that they were trapping Parliament in a perpetual state of disarray. Even small children understand these things. And yet she did it without caring about all that. I have no explanation of why and I don’t like conspiracies in general. But combined with the fact that I have mentioned, as to the renewal of the term of office of Ms. Papandreou and Mr. Mouzakis, the rejection by the Supreme Court of the automatic renewal of their terms of office, as they themselves wanted, the timing of sending the briefs to Parliament so close to the meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council, etc., give me pause for thought. If I am wronging them I apologise but unfortunately to say something else Roman, therefore absolutely European, it is not enough for Caesar’s wife to be honest but also to be seen to be honest. In any case, this new institution must find its feet and above all remain as politically neutral as possible. Its involvement in politics will destroy it. Those who really care about this institution, as they say, understand this.
D) as to my position that we can get out, a position for which I have also been criticized as usual. Unambiguously YES we can. I am not saying we will get out, nor am I saying we will get out yet, but as a member of the Parliament legislator who passed this law, I am telling you that if a future Greek Parliament would like Greece due to various problems to reverse this previous decision it could do so. Our membership of the institution does not follow from our membership of the EU. That is why there are 5 EU countries that have not joined this institution.
EPPO was established by Regulation 2017/1939 in the context of enhanced cooperation. The mandatory nature of this Regulation applies to the 22 countries that decided to join enhanced cooperation. However, a country may withdraw from enhanced cooperation at any time. If a participating country were to withdraw then the mandatory nature of this Regulation would cease and a simple law could remove the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Greece.
What would NOT be annulled
– The already pending cases that the EPPO has taken up against the country. So what I am saying and have said is not interference in the pending cases, which is what I have been accused of by the respected Association of Judges and Prosecutors, an association which I absolutely honour.
– The convictions and judgments that have already been handed down
– The obligation to cooperate with EPPO on past cases
What would change?
– The country would no longer participate in the administration and funding of EPPO
– It would no longer have a European Public Prosecutor as its representative
– New cases involving the country would go to national authorities
– The withdrawing country would simply be taken out of the scope of the regulation.
In essence, it is as if you had never signed up – for the future, but not for the past.
Those reputable legal experts who were quick to criticise me should read more carefully. Twenty years of legislating has taught me something after all. I repeat I am neither saying we will do it, nor that we should do it, I am saying that it remains our sovereign right to do it, so we want to do it.
So let’s give this institution time to work, but let’s be bold and tell the truth, it’s off to a very bad start. I wish them to find a way to work in such a complex structure as the EU. But they should know that they themselves will bear the ultimate responsibility for the failure of the institution they represent. Similar thoughts to mine are now being expressed in other countries of the 22; recently in Italy we had the Italian Supreme Court essentially emptying this institution. Let us consider these to be the teething troubles of a new institution and let us give it time, but not infinite time; none of us has infinite time in this life. And those who judge are judged’.
</html
