Response of the Union of Prosecutors to the request of an ultimately slim majority of 12 members of the Athens Bar Association’s Board of Directors for the resignation of Supreme Court prosecutor Konstantinos Tzavellas.
“The formulation of such a request outside any constitutional and legislative framework constitutes a direct and impermissible interference in the functioning of Justice, insults the institution and approaches the characteristics of institutional aberration.”
This position of the Union of Public Prosecutors encapsulates in a clear and categorical manner the positions of almost the entire legal world of the country on the request of an ultimately slim majority of 12 members of the Board of Directors of the Athens Bar Association, who are requesting the resignation of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Konstantinos Tzavellas, for putting the phone tapping case on file.
And we say weak because the president of the Athens Bar Association and chairman of the plenary session of the country’s bar associations (63 in total with the Athens Bar Association), Andreas Koutsolambros, did not slip into the positions of the marginal majority of the Board of Directors.
Although it is an unprecedented move for the president of a Bar Association not to align himself with the majority of the members of the Board of Directors, his stance nevertheless honors and serves to the fullest extent the institutional role of the Bar Associations, as stated in the announcement of the Coordinating Committee of the Bar Associations of the country, which, on the one hand, points out that “the defence of the rule of law is a non-negotiable precept for the Bar Association, directly linked to the institutional role that the state itself has reserved for the Bar Associations as guardians of democratic institutions and the public interest”, and on the other hand, there is no question of attacking a senior prosecutor, let alone asking for his resignation.
The separation of the position of the president of the APA from the anti-establishment positions of the majority and his identification with the positions of the entire legal world of the country, since he is also the president of all the Bar Associations, leaves the 12 councillors who voted in favour of the request for the resignation of the Supreme Court prosecutor exposed and tragically alone.
First, the Union of Public Prosecutors in a statement unreservedly condemned the decision taken by a majority of the Athens Bar Association to request the resignation of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, in which it stressed, among other things: “The administration of justice is governed exclusively by the constitution and the laws and is not subject to pressures or interventions that attempt to influence judicial judgement or substitute the institutionalised control procedures.
Such actions especially when manifested by institutional collaborators of the judiciary directly affect its authority and disturb the balance of the functions of the state. The independence of the Judiciary is non-negotiable and the Union of Public Prosecutors will continue to safeguard it by any means provided for by the institution, supporting in practice the officials of the Judiciary, regardless of their rank, against any attempt to interfere or question their work“.
For participation in a political-party confrontation in terms and style of student unionism, which brutally affects society’s trust in Justice and undermines democracy and the rule of law, Dimitris Anastasopoulos, head of the DSA’s faction “With the Lawyer” and president of the Union of Greek Lawyers e-Themis, also speaks in “Manifesto”: “The Athens Bar Association is one of the main guardians of the rule of law. It can only serve this mission when it opposes with sobriety and legal arguments decisions of the judiciary that need to be criticized. And not when it decides to participate in the political-partisan debate in terms and style of student unionism, as it recently did with its majority decision on the issue of wiretapping, calling for the resignation of the Supreme Court prosecutor. By so brutally violating society’s trust in the judiciary, it ultimately undermines democracy and the rule of law itself. The great silent majority of lawyers demand that our Association serve the principles and values of our profession, far from partisan or other considerations.”
In a statement to the Manifesto, Zois Stavropoulos, the vice-president of the IBA, Zois Stavropoulos, who joined the minority, also speaks of the need to evaluate the relevant decisions (wiretapping) in institutional terms and with respect to the independence of the judiciary, implying that party criteria must be eliminated. “The debate on the wiretapping and the relevant prosecutorial order highlights the importance of institutional functioning and citizens’ trust in the judiciary. In cases of particular gravity it is reasonable to raise questions as to the procedure, judicial practice and the reasoning of judgments. Asking such questions is part of the public debate and contributes to transparency. At the same time, the evaluation of the relevant decisions must be carried out in institutional terms and with respect for the independence of the judiciary. The stability of the criteria and clear justification strengthen the credibility of the institutions and the trust of society.”
We recall for the record that in the past a portion of Bar Association trade unionists have also unreservedly adopted” conspiracy and cover-up theories in the tragic Tebon, talking about the existence of xylene and other chemicals that caused the explosion and the participation of the prosecutor of the Larissa Appeals Court who found her son dead in the investigations of the accident, which proved to be completely untrue and untrue.
