wiretapping

The attempt to convene the Parliament’s Institutions and Transparency Committee is developing into a tough bra de fer of the opposition government, in which the minority seeks to summon the Supreme Court prosecutor Georgia Adeilinis, as well as the deputy prosecutor Achilleas Zisi, requesting that they forward the conclusion on the archiving of the case of wiretaps and the entire case file.

One after the other, the parties ask for the convening of the committee with their relevant request, without however being certain that they will succeed. And the reasons are that as the Deputy Minister of Justice Yiannis Bougas pointed out in the Parliament “from which provision of the Rules of Procedure it follows that the Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the Parliament turns into an inspection body of the independent justice or an appellate court of review of judicial decisions”, underlining that this offends the independence of justice.

“Who can be granted access to the finding or filing order? Only whoever is involved and justifies a legitimate interest”, he stated categorically. But also circles of the Parliament considered that the opposition’s request is not foreseen, in the sense that the Parliament cannot control the judges and their decisions.

The separation of powers

Invoking the separation of powers, competent members of the Parliament pointed out that a judicial decision cannot be put to the discretion of the members of the Institutions and Transparency Committee, something that has never happened. As they mention in this regard, the legislative power cannot intervene in the core of the judicial power by controlling it for its decisions.

“Parliament does not judge court decisions”, they emphasize, while referring to the article of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament (43A) which provides that the Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the Parliament “may call for a hearing the president and the vice-presidents of the Council of State, of the Supreme Court and the Court of Audit, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, the general commissioner of the State of the Court of Audit and the general commissioner of the administrative courts for issues related to operational issues of Justice and for the purpose of enhancing transparency”, they emphasize that concerns purely operational issues and not judicial decisions.

With regard to the conclusion of the Supreme Court prosecutor that the opposition requests to be forwarded to the committee, they stress that this cannot be done either as it is an integral part of the case file which is secret and only anyone with a legitimate interest can have access to it.

The role of far-right parties

Finally, with regard to the 2/5 required to make the hearing of a person in the Institutions and Transparency Committee mandatory, in this case it assumes that one of the extreme right-wing parties such as SYRIZA, PASOK, KKE, New Left and Freedom Sailing have 10 members and one more is needed (from Hellenic Solution, Nike or Spartans) to complete the required number of 11 out of 27 that the committee has.

In this light and given the position that the government has formulated against the strong criticism expressed for the archiving of the much-lauded case, it is not excluded that the Committee on Institutions and Transparency may not even convene and its president may reject the request at its birth of the minority, which will trigger a new cycle of confrontation.

Group fire on Hatzidakis

In the meantime, Kostis Hatzidakis, who was a victim of surveillance, was targeted, with the opposition parties calling on him to take a stand. “I have repeatedly been appointed to the Plenary. I don’t take back a word, not even half. I repeat them. From the conversations that have been published it appears that I am completely clean and transparent in my actions. It is clear since I am speaking to you from the government seats that the prime minister has complete confidence in me. I respect the decisions of the Court.

From now on, all legal and mandatory actions will follow”he told the Parliament, while noting that “I am not a judge to know all the individual procedural procedures and details” and therefore “when there will be further discussion in the Parliament because it is natural that it will be done one way or the other, you will be able to ask the relevant questions to the Ministry of Justice or the judicial authorities”.

He also stated that he respects the verdict, while to the persistent questions of Zoe Konstantopoulou if he testified as a witness after being watched, he replied that “I can’t say why they weren’t called” and that “we do not waive any of our legal rights”.