The President of the Authority of Assurance of Communications Privacy (ADAE) and a judge, Christos Rammosraises serious questions about the legality and rush with which the operation of private universities is launched.
Mr Rammos is concerned about the start of the operation of private universities, as the Council of State (CoE) decision has not yet been published. He emphasizes that the constitutional provisions of Article 16 (§§5 and 8) explicitly prohibit the establishment of universities by individuals, and it considers it inconceivable that such a serious issue is considered simply solved with a statement by the President of the CoE. The judge calls on strict adherence to the procedures for maintaining the prestige of institutions.
Christos Rammos’ intervention comes at a time when the debate on private universities in Greece is particularly intense. The government argues that the new legislative framework is constitutionally guaranteed and will improve the country’s education system. However, his critics, such as Mr Rammos, express fears of any violations of the Constitution and the degradation of the public university.
The controversial post
“Nearly three months after a Laconian announcement by the President of the Council of State (issued on the basis of Article 34 (8) of Presidential Decree 18/1989) that the Plenary of the Council of State, has been able to find that the Council A country affiliated with Gats, the decision has not yet been published, to my knowledge.
I will not comment on this crisis this time in terms of legal merits, as announced by the CoE president. I have done it with my earlier 14.6 post. I just repeat that it causes at least enormous (not excessive) question that the Council of State, which is the main guarantor of constitutional legitimacy, has bypassed two clear constitutional provisions (those of Article 16 §§5 and eight) that are explicitly and uninterrupted (well). Many said then “do not hurry wait for the decisions to be published, to see the relevant arguments contained in their etiology, and then make any commentary.”
Instead, not only have we not yet seen published decisions on this very serious issue, but we have seen the forthcoming start of the operation of the so -called university -based legal entities (in short). This means that in a simple laconic statement by the President of the Council of State and without the legal case, the judicial decision of the Council of State has taken legal case (to my knowledge of the judicial decisions, they make a legal status from and by their publicity) Conditions under which the Licensing of the IPP is accepted under the Constitution, the state has already begun to launch the process of initiating the operation of one- the least that one can say- a controversial institution. Question: Is this rush compatible with the meticulous observance of the constitutional legitimacy that the state has to show? I will not give the answer here now. I just ask the question.
Further, there are some questions at this point in relation to the application of Article 34-8 of Presidential Decree 18/1989. The ratio of this article was to have no leaks of the outcome of the CoE plenary conferences, as (unfortunately) happened in the past, but not a statement that causes the public (legal or not) the impression that this announcement is essentially the decision and the decision itself is a “decision” decide or can compile and complete the text of the decision and whenever the President of the Court decides that the reason for publication is mature for publication.
It should, I think, in these cases the publication of the decision to follow within a reasonable time (and in the case of reasonable time can only have the meaning of the fastest possible) from the issuance of the announcement of the President of the CoE. It is not possible for serious issues of constitutionality of laws to be considered resolved by a statement by the President of the Court. Moreover, until the publication of each judge’s decision- consciously judging- it may (and still have the inalienable right) to change their minds and the majority may become a minority and vice versa. I close here by saying that the difficult times we live in institutions must themselves be thoroughly cared for to maintain their prestige. “