Parliament: The n/s for the Judicial Police was voted on principle in the competent Committee

The Ministry of Justice’s bill for the establishment and operation of the Judicial Police was voted by a majority on its principle, by the Committee on Public Administration, Public Order and Justice.

The government majority was in favor, while SYRIZA, PASOK-KINAL, ELLY and MeRA25, reserved themselves to be placed in the Plenary and the KKE declared that they would vote against.

It was preceded by the positive, overwhelming majority, positions of the competent extra-parliamentary bodies that were invited to submit their opinions, who characterized the bill as a positive and important step in helping the work of judicial officials and speeding up the administration of justice”.

Particularly :

The president of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Margarita Stenioti, spoke in favor of the bill, stressing that it “satisfies a permanent and perennial demand of the Union for the creation of an independent body of Judicial Police, following the operating standards of other European countries”.

At the same time, he noted that the issuance of Presidential Decrees is extremely necessary, as certain issues should be fully clarified, so that the bill really helps to speed up the administration of justice and the security of courtrooms, given that, as he said, “recently there has been targeting, no only of the infrastructures but also of judicial persons”.

He also emphasized that “the provision for the creation of a civil department in the Police and the hiring of specialized scientific personnel, with exclusive employment, who will assist and assist the work of the prosecutor, will contribute to the acceleration of the administration of justice as until now it was absent from the criminal system this prediction”.

He also noted that while the Judicial Police had been envisaged since 1993, the Presidential Decrees had never been issued and the law had not been implemented while he suggested that a regional directorate be established in each district.

“From the results will be judged the bill whose purpose is to organize the Judicial Police in order to help the judicial work and actually bring about an acceleration of justice”, he said.

Responding to a question from parliamentarians, on whether the head of the Judicial Police should be an active judicial officer, the president of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors noted that the placement of an active judge might have created a constitutional problem.

The deputy general secretary of the Union of Prosecutors of Greece, Sofia Diploidou, also appeared positive to the bill, pointing out that the Plenary of the Supreme Court had also emphasized the need for the operation of the Judicial Police for the execution of criminal decisions, arrest warrants and other procedures with the aim of facilitating justice as much in the pre-investigation stage as well as in the execution of sentences.

“The work of the Judicial Justice is mainly repressive in nature while it will contribute to the more effective detection of modern forms of crime and will assist in the investigative work as it happens in many other European countries”, he underlined.

At the same time, he proposed that judicial supervision and the powers of the Judicial Police belong to a prosecutor, while he noted that further powers would weaken the original purpose of the bill, which is to strengthen the judicial work.

The president of the Plenary Session of the Athens Bar Association, Dimitris Vervesos, characterized as a positive step the establishment and operation of the Judicial Police, pointing out that it will effectively cover both the quality of judicial work and the faster administration of justice, which currently suffer due to a lack of specialized scientific personnel .

At the same time, he expressed his disagreement both for the absence of representation of the Bar Association in the Judicial Police and for being a superior judicial officer.

As he pointed out, it is institutionally correct not to create conditions of osmosis between the executive and legislative powers in public opinion and he added that if the government insists, at least the head must have served in the judiciary for a sufficient period of time earlier so that there is no suspicion of involvement . “There has to be enough time before retirement for a judge to take a public position, otherwise it’s going to be a nuisance and a ticking time bomb,” he noted.

Dimitris Liatsos, member of the board of directors of the Federation of Judicial Officers of Greece, argued that the Federation had not been invited to express its views and summary procedures were followed and expressed strong reservations as to the effectiveness of the bill as, as he said, it is full of gaps and vagueness and ambiguities. Mr. Liatsos spoke of huge gaps in judicial officers and serious understaffing, and of significant infrastructural deficiencies while characterizing the new legislative framework as a “drop in the ocean”.

“Since 2007, there has been a recruitment competition to fill the 3,000 vacancies that exist today. Also, there are serious shortages of building infrastructure. In which buildings will the Judicial Police officers be housed? There are piles of case files even next to toilets. Another the security of the courtrooms is a serious matter. There are many problems in the courtyard of the courts, and recently an explosive device was found in the Athens court. In the big courts, cases of serious crimes are tried. How can people with little experience and training be given so much authority? I’m afraid that there will be problems. In a day there may be 80 cases tried in 80 different courtrooms. We are talking about 160 people, not including the performances that in many cases need to be given for life. The proper infrastructure is not there It is a drop in the ocean bill,” said Mr. Liatsos, among other things.