REPORTS
The submission of a report by the Deputy Minister of Sports to the Administrative Court of First Instance, and the suspicions of an attempt to interfere in the work of the justice system
The Board of Directors of a sports federation is elected for a four-year term within the last four months of the year that the Olympic Games are held. The year 2020 was the year in which the Olympic Games would usually have been held, however, the coronavirus pandemic made it impossible to hold the elections for the statutory bodies of the sports federations at that time.
For this reason, a series of legal provisions were passed which changed the ways in which elections could be held, and extended the term of the Boards of Directors (Article 143 of law 4714/2020, which was later amended, twice. You can see its final form as Article 58 of 4761/2020). A little later, law 4726/2020 was passed, which concerned the reform of the institutional framework, regulating, among other things, the conditions of the right to participate and vote in the nominations for appointments to the statutory bodies of the sports federations. Subsequently, Article 45 of law 4778/2021 and the Ministerial Decision 72664/2021 provided the possibility of holding elections digitally. Finally, Article 117 of Law 4790/2021 provided that “Sports Federations in which, before the entry into force of this article, a temporary board of directors has been appointed, must conduct elections to elect a new board of directors before 31.5.2021.” This regulation was deemed necessary as some federations “erroneously considered that they are not bound by the time limits set out in Article 143 of law 4714/2020, as it is in force today, as a result of which they are no longer able to meet the legal deadlines for announcing appointments, drafting lists and the ratification of the latter by the G.G.A.”
It is noted at this point that the number of provisions that were voted on and amended in a very short period of time, as well as the highly specific content of Article 117 of Law 4790/2021, can only cause concerns about the purpose that all this legislative behavior served.
In a press release, the Deputy Minister of Sports announced that he would submit a report to the Three Member Board of Directors of the Athens Court of First Instance, raising the issue that some clubs that do not meet the conditions of law 4726/2020 and therefore are not entitled to participate in the forthcoming elections, are in the appeal process before the Single-member Court of First Instance of Athens and seek their registration in the electoral rolls of the forthcoming EOK elections. He goes on to say that this appeal to the Court is in collusion with EOK and that “the discussion of the relevant requests is conducted in terms of a fictitious dispute… resulting in the issuance of interim injunctions, which by circumventing the provisions of existing legislation, distort the electoral process.”
The reason for this complaint was the fact that some interim injunctions had already been issued, based on which an additional 62 sports clubs were registered in the electoral lists, whilst other such applications were still pending. The Deputy Minister’s resort to filing this report, and the content of this report, show a willingness to prejudge the result of the pending court disputes, as he judges the applications as illegal and without substance.
Despite the fact that the Deputy Minister’s report closes with the phrase “With absolute respect for the Judiciary and its independent operation, I felt the need to highlight and denounce this situation that undermines the credibility of the institutions…”, the manner in which this complaint was made, and the time at which it took place (i.e. whilst cases were pending before the judicial authorities on matters relating to the content of the petition) provoked the reaction of the Union of Judges and Prosecutors. This is because the choice of submitting a petition to the Three Member Board of Directors of the Court of First Instance (i.e. a body that according to Articles 15 and 19 of the Code of the Organization of Courts has very specific responsibilities, which in no case include the substantive judgment on a specific case) rather than the exercise of legal remedies or recourse to the prosecutor’s office, raises concerns. As the Union of Judges and Prosecutors states, “reports with direct or covert appeals to court officials, aimed at directing their judicial judgment, can not be accepted in a state governed by the rule of law.” It is noted that concerns regarding the expediency of the submission of this report were also expressed by the heads of Justice and Sports of the SYRIZA Central Committee, Xanthopoulos and Moraitis.
The separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are key elements of the rule of law. Cases pending before the civil courts are adjudicated according to the rules of Civil Procedure by the judges to whom the case is assigned, while the investigation into criminal acts is the responsibility of the Prosecutor’s Office. Any instruction, recommendation or suggestion to a judicial officer on a substantive or procedural matter in a particular case or category of cases is inadmissible. This is all the more true in cases where the expression of opinion on the substance of pending court cases comes from the executive, as it carries risks for the separation of powers.
In this case, however, the Deputy Minister of Sports’ choice to submit a report to the Board of Directors instead of using the legal means provided to him by law (to report the illegal acts to the prosecuting authorities, or to intervene in pending proceedings in ways provided by the Code of Civil Procedure), can only raise concerns about the expediency that this option served.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
