Reply with spikes to Athens Bar Association and reacts to Article 18 of the new bill for criminal procedure was given by the Minister of Justice George Floridisreferring to hypocrisy and selective sensitivities. As he explains, this provision had already been implemented for five years, without reactions, and is now returning with more guarantees to the parties.
The Minister recalls that the arrangement for limited access to case filewhen issues of national security or witness protection have been raised, it had already been incorporated into Greek law since 2014, based on a European directive, on the government. ND -PASOK. This provision, he says, was in force for five years without provoking reactions, until it was abolished by SYRIZA in 2019.
“The first question to those who today say that they are ‘feeling terror’ is how they lived with this horror for five years without saying one word,” Mr Floridis says. Adds that the layout now returns with additional guarantees for the parties, such as the possibility of appealing to the Judicial Council.
The Minister also cites a series of decisions European Court of Justice of Human Rightsjustifying restrictions on access to evidence when national security or witnesses are in danger. “The right to disclose evidence is not absolute,” he notes, calling on critics to stop being exposed.
In detail the post by George Floridis
“Many have seen my eyes. It brings me terror”!
This is, among other things, the posting of the President of the Athens Bar Association, which is repeatedly repeated by various criminals and non -lawyers, in particular PASOK, referring to Article 18 of the draft law of the Ministry of Justice, which is discussed by the Ministry of Justice.
It is interesting to see it:
In 2014, the ND-PASOK government, with Prime Minister Mr Samaras and Vice-President Mr. Venizelos, brought to the House to vote for the integration of the European Directive under 2012/13/EU. Articles 7 and 8 of the European Directive provided for the conditions of access to the case file, setting the following:
“Since the right to fair trial is not affected, the competent authorities, in questioning, preliminary or preliminary examination, do not allow access to a portion of the material if it may be in serious risk of life or the fundamental rights of another person or if such a refusal to be sufficient to or seriously harm national security.
In order to provide information to the defendant in accordance with the above, a report shall be drawn up or a special mention is made in the report compiled.
The defendant or lawyer has the right to submit objections against the possible omission or refusal of the competent authority to provide the information above. “
These provisions were incorporated into Article 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Article 12 of Law 4236 of 2014, as our country had obliged.
In the Legislative Committee, which prepared the integration of the European Directive, he also participated as a lawyer as a representative of the Athens Bar Association.
This provision was in place in our criminal law for five (5) years, that is, from 2014 to 2019, when it was implicitly abolished by SYRIZA with the penal code it has rushed to the House in 2019, in violation of our obligation to the European Union and the European Union.
The first question to those who today say “feel terror” is how they lived with this horror for five years without saying one word? (!) Perhaps the terror had been cut by Lalia, which I do not believe.
So this provision, which applies to the incorporation of the European Directive in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, etc., is reinstated, as is the obligation of our country, with the provision of Article 18 of the Law, which is discussed by the House of Representatives. They did not exist in the 2014 provision for five (5) years and did not “cause terror”.
I repeat, if some would stop being exposed that this provision in 2014 was legislated by the ND-PASOK government and apparently voted in favor by PASOK MPs.
——–
Regarding various people who are swollen for the so -called unacceptable restriction of human and individual rights, I would like to remind you that the Human Rights Court of Human Rights is the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which by its successive decisions:
In 1997 in the Van Mechelen case against the Netherlands,
2,000 in the Rowe & Davis case by M. Brittany,
In 2017 in the Van Wesenbeeck case against Belgium,
In 2017 in the Croatian Matakovic case,
in 2017 in the Berardi case by San Marino and
in 2018 in the Paci case against Belgium),
ruled that:
“The right to disclose relevant evidence is not absolute. In criminal proceedings there may be conflicting interests, such as national security, the need to protect witnesses who are at risk of retaliation and therefore in some cases it may be necessary to hide evidence in order to safeguard fundamental rights.”
I hope, with the reading of these rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, will, at least a little, retreat the “terror” of the lately worried human rights protectors, who have fallen for five years (2014-2019) when the debate was in place today. Guarantees for the parties, who did not exist in the prevailing, just as the decisions of the ECD state.