“Yesterday proved that there is an issue,” emphasized Justice Minister Georgios Floridis, speaking on ERT News Radio 105.8, regarding the 89-year-old man’s attack at the Court of Appeal. He added that they are awaiting a proposal from the Hellenic Police to implement new security measures. “And in this area we probably need to increase security measures or implement something we didn’t have before,” he emphasized.
Floridis: “We will have a proposal from the Hellenic Police”
“It is obvious that today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow we will have both a clear picture and a proposal from the Hellenic Police, because the expertise in vulnerability assessments belongs to the Hellenic Police, and we need to see exactly how we can improve this situation,” he continued. Regarding yesterday’s (April 28) incident, the Minister noted “the first thing we cared about was that the Secretary General went there immediately to see if we had anything unpleasant. Fortunately we didn’t, and from there we start.”
“All these things make us think. We always look for gaps, what they are. Now we’re discussing something, and the day before yesterday, even with the highest security standards, the President of the United States was in danger.
So I want to say, let’s come down to earth a bit to see that there is no country in the world that has solved all these issues. We just need to see what conclusions we draw each time we have such events, because that’s how countries move forward. Let’s look at it a bit more calmly, to see what exactly this is,” Mr. Floridis said.
Describing what the data was until now, he mentioned that “this is a building that has been like this for decades because criminal trials are not held there. I mean to say, criminal trials were never held there, to have crowds, to have issues.”
Regarding what the vice-president of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors said earlier in the same program, he mentioned “I personally don’t know about that. At the Court of Appeal, which is a large complex, the Supreme Court, especially at the Court of Appeal where we have serious criminal trials, you have major security measures and that’s why this didn’t happen there. It happened at the former Justice of the Peace court, which hosts civil cases that people don’t go to, meaning mainly lawyers go. The Evelpidon School which also has, the Evelpidon buildings, which have criminal cases have good security.”
“The courts that have the pressure, the possible or probable possibility that something might arise, these are guarded. That is, at the Court of Appeal to enter, you can’t enter even with coffee or at Evelpidon, it has all those elements that constitute a good security system. Nevertheless, you say that even where we have the best security, something can still happen to you. That’s why all these are continuously checked.
But here, in this specific building, due to decades where nothing happened because of the nature of the cases, because people don’t go there. Litigants don’t go, very few go. Eleven o’clock in the morning to understand, the cases there are finished. There’s nothing. They are civil cases. So you don’t have this possible danger that has been diagnosed for years. Nevertheless, I repeat, yesterday’s incident teaches us something. Indeed, that even where for decades you had no problem due to the nature of the operation of this court, it seems you can have one,” he added.
“Today, tomorrow the Hellenic Police will finalize together with the Ministry, with us that is, the picture and the proposal that we must do something different there. Once this is done, next week, these will have been settled. Everything proceeds based on a logical assessment of things,” Mr. Floridis added.
Wiretapping scandal
Regarding the wiretapping case and the political storm that erupted after the Supreme Court prosecutor’s decision not to reopen the case from the archives, Mr. Floridis said the following: “Two months ago, a decision was issued by a Single-Member Misdemeanor Court of Athens, which decision said that, I refer to the Athens First Instance Prosecutor’s Office mainly, to investigate whether from the evidence that emerged in this trial, some other crimes that were not included in the first investigation could possibly be substantiated.
So there a separation was made, where some of these elements were assigned to first-instance prosecutors to investigate them, those that the decision referred and the issue of whether espionage might have been committed at the misdemeanor level always, because that’s what the decision says, were referred to the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office because the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office had investigated whether there is also the possibility of espionage.
I remind you that the investigation into the telephone surveillance issue was conducted by the deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Mr. Zisis, it was extensive and reached two conclusions. One was that there are responsibilities of persons, citizens, who must be brought to court, they were brought and based on the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s report this trial took place because now we hear various things, but they deliberately try to confuse people. This trial took place thanks to the investigation conducted by Supreme Court Prosecutor Mr. Zisis.
The second conclusion of that investigation was that there was no evidence that documented involvement of state services and therefore, espionage issues. Thus, in that part, this case was archived. What was referred to the Supreme Court prosecutor from the first-instance court was whether some evidence that emerged in this trial justify reopening this case from the archives, in order to investigate the espionage issue.
The Supreme Court prosecutor who investigated the case himself, invoking the previous investigation conducted by Mr. Zisis with two reports, because they usually avoid referring to Mr. Zisis’s second report, said that the decision does not present any new evidence that would justify reopening the case. Thus, the case remains archived. So that was the issue. (…)
At any time, either in the appeal trial that will take place for the first trial that took place, because here we had a first-instance trial of a single-member court – the accused convicted appealed this decision, the appeal will be heard next December it has been scheduled – at any time, either in that court or outside the court, if there is evidence that some have or that emerges, which justifies bringing this case out of the archives again, this evidence will be submitted properly and it will be examined whether they should be brought out of the archives or not. I mean to say, nothing closes definitively.”
Regarding the accusations toward the government and justice system from PASOK, which is preparing to submit a request for an investigative committee, Mr. Floridis noted: “when we judge the decision of a prosecutor and especially of the country’s supreme prosecutor, there is an obligation, because the prosecutor judges legally. What did the prosecutor judge? Whether in the decision that was referred to him there is new evidence that justifies bringing this case out of the archives and the prosecutor said there is no such evidence that justifies this.
Fine. I would expect from those who criticize the prosecutor’s decision to say that at this and this and this and this point, the prosecutor’s decision is not legally correct. But they don’t say this. They rush to address a wholesale accusation that it is this way or that way, manipulated and this is the most dangerous thing that can happen to justice, especially when it is behavior of the main opposition party.
So I didn’t hear where they legally disagree with the prosecutor’s decision. Nowhere. Not at one point. I constantly hear nonsense and one especially from a journalistic investigation that says that, he managed not to take it out of the archives, he rushed because new evidence will appear. But my man, you who say these stupid things, I say to those who say them, you must know that when any evidence appears at any time and this evidence is judged to be worthy of bringing the case out of the archives, the case comes out. So what does it mean he rushed? There is no finality here.”
