{"id":1632,"date":"2026-04-20T20:19:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T17:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/?p=1632"},"modified":"2026-04-20T20:19:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T17:19:00","slug":"harris-katsivardas-in-manifesto-a-vote-of-conscience-against-the-telecinemas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/?p=1632","title":{"rendered":"Harris Katsivardas in “Manifesto”: a vote of conscience against the telecinemas"},"content":{"rendered":"

Should the Parliament<\/strong> refine the respective dicografia<\/strong> as the case may be and on a case-by-case basis and on a discriminatory basis before it for the waiver or waiver of immunity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In recent days, we have been witnessing a contradictory “dissonance” of conscious scandalology<\/strong>, which on the one hand is causing understandable trouble for the mystics of the law, I mean lawyers<\/strong>, and on the other hand it satisfies the pious ego of the conspiracy theorists and toxic scandal-mongers, who are the first to set the stone against the alleged names involved in the newly filed lawsuits, related indirectly or directly to the underlying case of OPEKEPE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

It is obvious that the legal civilization<\/strong> is based on the highly formal Charter<\/strong>, which is, of necessity, the Constitution<\/strong>, as well as the judicial rules<\/strong> of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Union law<\/strong> in force.<\/p>\n

In particular, Article 26<\/strong> is relevant to the distinction of powers<\/strong> into legislative, executive and judicial, the distinction of which in no way includes that of the media<\/strong>, our beloved television, which tends to take precedence and become “the king’s queen”, by substituting itself for the prosecutorial and investigative authorities<\/strong>, causing on the one hand an over-exaggerated confusion<\/strong> in public opinion, obscuring the truth and, on the other hand, deafening fundamental procedural safeguards<\/strong>, as a result of the State of Law<\/strong>, with the result that the MP in question is disgraced<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

For example, passages from the case file are made public, which is illegal<\/strong>, and on top of that the self-appointed “tele-interrogators”, “tele-inspectors” and “tele-judges” draw conclusions from the questions put to the accused MPs as unproven, given that they lack institutional guarantees<\/strong> and jurisdiction<\/strong>, as they do not in any way cover all the stages of the case-file, with the result that unfounded impressions<\/strong> are created and false assurances<\/strong> of certain persons are created in public opinion, in a manner manifestly contrary to the institution of the presumption of innocence<\/strong> under Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

With the consequence that it is subsequently consolidated in common thought that the Member concerned is already guilty<\/strong>, at a time when it is true that the adoption of the waiver or waiver of immunity<\/strong> under Article 56 of the CCP merely gives permission to circumvent Articles 61 and 62 of the Constitution<\/strong>, in order to carry out the investigatory acts<\/strong> in the context of the preliminary investigation under Articles 243 and 244 of the CCP, in order to ascertain whether or not there is sufficient evidence of the alleged offence.<\/p>\n

so that, if and when they do exist, criminal proceedings may be brought<\/strong>, in which case, and only then, the status of a defendant<\/strong> under Article 72 of the CCP is acquired, and the person prosecuted ceases to be a subordinate<\/strong> under Article 244(1)(b) of the CCP. 1 of the CPC.<\/p>\n

But apart from the legal aspect, which is suppressed and denied in the case of pressure tactics<\/strong> by the media, the protective scope of Article 62 of the Constitution<\/strong> is further eliminated from the discussion, in relation to the existence of the immunity of a Member of Parliament<\/strong> who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence in the performance of his duties.<\/p>\n

The provision in question protects the MP from any attempted politically motivated prosecution<\/strong>, hence this protection constitutes a kind of “police protection” as a representative of the nation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Therefore, in order to waive his immunity, it is required that the MP concerned, before expressing his uncontrolled conscientious judgment<\/strong> through his vote, must thoroughly examine whether the alleged offence is closely connected with the performance of his duties or not.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the body of the Parliament<\/strong> must thoroughly sift through the respective file as case by case and by distinction before the Parliament for waiver or not of immunity<\/strong>, having regard to the above provisions.<\/p>\n

This is a procedural guarantee of transparency<\/strong>, for the justifiably correct interpretation of Article 62 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 20<\/strong> on the right to judicial protection and Article 4 para. 2<\/strong> on equality, in relation, finally, to the contested waiver of the immunity of Members of Parliament<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, in-depth legal thought and analysis<\/strong> is intended to be the tool for the proper manifestation of conscientious voting<\/strong>, taking into account the aforementioned legal considerations and problems concerning the correct interpretation and application of Article 62 of the Constitution, so that they do not fall prey to the “telecourts”<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

*Haralambos B. Katsivardas is a lawyer before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, an independent member of parliament.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Parliament must thoroughly examine the case file in each case as it comes before it on a case-by-case and discriminatory basis for the lifting or not of immunity.
\n…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1633,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}