‘It’s not the layout of Criminal code one that may be the basis for a request for a criminal committee set up Preliminary examination » The President of the Democrats and Constitutionalist underlined Andreas Loverdos, Commenting on the request filed by PASOK on the establishment of a preliminary investigation for the political leadership of the Ministry of Transport on Kostas Karamanlis and Christos Spirtz.
“If they focus there, in 291, I have answered this question before. I did not know that they were focusing on obstruction of transport. It’s wrong, it’s a wrong criminal provision. It is wrong to focus on an offense investigation. What is the job of transporting transportation? It is another objective substance of this offense. Christ and Apostle. It’s a legal mistake. It facilitates the defense of people, ministers, deputy ministers, “he said in the first program.
Wrong the legal basis of the proposal
Asked about his statements Kostis Hatzidakis He referred to “PASOK’s blunder”, explaining that Article 291 of the Criminal Code, which he cites to substantiate a felony for ministers, presupposes that he agrees with him, Mr Loverdos stressed “this is this criminal code. What if I agree?. Is it a day out? It’s a day. “
“It’s self -evident. The question is whether this is the legal basis of a recommendation proposal pre -trial Commission, as we say. Is not. It’s wrong, “he added, while still pointing out,” this is not standing. If he does not fall into the House he will fall into the Special Court. The layout is wrong, it wants a very hand -drawn interpretation and I don’t think any judge will give it a serious judge. (…) He is not pre -trial with 291. That is, if I were a Member I wouldn’t vote for her, ”he said.
However, regarding the recommendation Pre -trial, Mr. Loverd He pointed out that he was politically expected after such a large and in -depth tragedy to seek responsibilities.
“I imagine that any rational Greek will agree, the intensity of the tragedy and the intensity of the debate on the tragedy could not lead to the parliamentary side, without initiatives, that is, the whole issue. I think that in this every serious person, every Greek and Greek woman who claim seriousness, they must say yes. So, politically it was expected and correct by PASOK, from the New Democracy, from another party or many parties together, it would be done, “he said.
What does it say about the legal aspect of the proposal
In the legal aspect of the proposal, which concerns eight politicians with the demand to describe the same offense for all, whose character is based on the possible deceit, Mr Loverdos mentioned the following.
“It is for every crime researcher whether his objective existence and his subjective existence are fulfilled on the one hand. In the subjective existence we have the deception where we have the full deception and the potential deceit and have negligence. This will be evaluated first by the House as it will work, because I do not know how to work, I will tell you why I am concerned, and in the second reason and in fact the justice, the Special Court.
Now, let’s look at the discussion of the potential deceit. The discussion of the potential deceit is made and it is reasonable to do because no one goes through that no one wants to do that. But the possible deception means that it will be sought if every reasonable person could think that this could happen, and although he thought about it that could happen, he did nothing.
I want to see how the proposal is documented because it does not concern two persons, Mr. Karamanlis and Mr. Spirtzis, but also concerns the Deputy Ministers, where one should be careful if they were relevant. From one case I know why I asked, the man admitted that he was relevant. So the proposal says that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Ministers, each deputy minister, was investigated through the Government Gazette, and they ruled that all eight are relevant. So this is a typical easy issue that one can see by looking at the Government Gazette.
Let’s go to the difficult now. My first approach and I can’t get away from it, because I have been placed in the House three, four times, but I can’t now hide from myself. Because I had participated in the revision of Article 86, where the deadline of the two House of Representatives was deleted and remained the new arrangement without the House of Representatives to investigate the prosecution of ministerial offenses and the Constitution was limited to the phrase, as the law is set. (…) I have a legal response. I don’t have a politician, I’m not interested at all. When the Constitution was reviewed and eliminated the arrangement of two summits of the damping deadline, then the law had to change it in order to have the abolition of the so -called limitation. I was saying in the House, why don’t you change the law? In my speeches, not in the hallway. And the answer given by the Maximus Mansion is that we changed the Constitution, what needs to change the law? The Constitution is the fundamental law of the state. It is the fundamental law of the state but in this regulation it says, as the law defines. It does not prohibit the common legislator, that is, the House of Representatives to set depreciation deadlines. “
Asked if there is a limitation period for the political leadership of the Transport of Transport on Spirtz, Mr Loverdos pointed out: “There is a limitation period. I can’t deny it. “
Attack on SYRIZA for Novartis Square
As to the case NOVARTIS And yesterday’s testimony by Mr Loverdos as a witness to the case of the former protected witnesses, asking what he considers to be the political targeting around this story, he stressed, “As we said in the House then, and as I continue to say and tell you, In the opinion of the then opposition, to be deprived of its key executives and having comfort in the maintenance of SYRIZA in the government for ten years. They themselves said in the first two, three years of their term of office, that is, before the last where they had seen that they had great difficulties to win elections, they themselves said we would stay for ten years. To stay for ten years you have not to have opposition. In order not to have opposition, former prime ministers and former basic ministers and then key opposition officials went to prison. 100% was that. “
“And from now on, there were individuals. To blame a company in the United States to take its condemnation, which is a common process for their money as compensation for your contribution and so on. But these are not what concerns you, if a lawyer wanted to make money from this case or if a false witnesses wanted to do the same. The main issue is that this case was promoted by September 2015 and after those officials of the previous government who wanted to stay in power for 10 years, “Mr Loverdos added, noting yesterday’s testimony” I expected it 7.5 years and with excessive anger “.