Government of Caria | caria.ca

[Pelasgia]

You must be registered for see images

Kingdom of Caria
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Secretariat General for Information Systems​

The Government of Caria is proud to announce its new unified online navigational website:

You must be registered for see links

! Designed as a simplified guide to Carian government websites,

You must be registered for see links

provides Carian citizens and foreigners alike with readily available and easily accessible indexes and links to all relevant Carian government websites. Popular sites include:​

• You must be registered for see links
  (The Federal Government)
• You must be registered for see links
  (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
• You must be registered for see links
  (The Royal Police)
• You must be registered for see links
  (The official index of Carian legislation and jurisprudence)

 

[Pelasgia]

You must be registered for see links

Decision 1/2022 (In Banco, Constitutional)
Subject
Division of Powers, Fundamental Rights

Summary: Power of Confederal Government to enact criminal statute criminalizing abortion across Caria. The Confederal Government has the power to enact criminal laws governing acts within the purview of its powers. The establishment of common medical standards across Caria is within the Confederal Government’s reserve powers. Abortion can be criminalized as part of this power, since it constitutes a medical procedure. The prohibition of abortion does violate the rights to personal freedom and personal safety, especially where there are reasonably accessible exceptions for medical and other legitimate reasons. Abortion does not implicate the right to privacy, as it is not a form of communication or information, but, rather, a medical procedure.​

You must be registered for see images

№ 1/2022
THE COURT OF THE CONSISTORIUM OF THE CONFEDERACY
IN BANCO​

Constituted by the judges: G. Polyzoïdis, Chairman of the Consistorium, A. Tsertsetis, K. Theodorakopoulos, M. Adamidis and P. Thermiotis, Vice-Chairmen of the Consistorium, T. Papanikos, Petitioner, and L. Kerameus, N. Kozyris, A. Alexiadou, Th. Kantakouzenos, Ph. Palaiologou, D. Petropoulos, N. Dimopoulos, M. Athanasiadis, D. Anastasiadis, A. Pantelopoulos, D. Andreou, M. Lentzou, E. Tiveriadou, V. Symeonidou, Z. Kyriakopoulos, A. Livos, G. Alexandrou, P. Angelou, E. Doukas, Ch. Sotiropoulos, M. Kondylis, E. Chatzioannidou, A. Papalambrou, Th. Chrysanthis, Ch. Iliadou, Members of the Consistorium.

Convened in public at its Seat on 28 December 2021, in the presence of the Registrar, K. Papoulis, to try the following case between:

The Applicants: The Free and Most Serene Policy of Ambracia, legally represented by its Secretary of Justice, which was represented in court by the Chairman of Legal Council of that Polity, M. Latinos; the Free and Most Serene Polity of Navarone, legally represented by its Secretary of Justice, which was represented in court by the Chairman of Legal Council of that Polity, G. Karoutsos; the Deme and Polity of Thoricus, legally represented by its Secretary of Justice, which was represented in court by the Chairman of Legal Council of that Polity, S. Athmoneus.
The Association for the Advancement of Women’s Rights “Leto”, which was represented by Anaxandros Petroupolites of Petroupolites & Associates.
The Carian Human Rights Federation, which was represented by Demetra Papanikou of Papanikos & Associates.
The Carian Physicians’ Association, which was represented by Adamantios Nomikos of Nomikos, Kyrillos, Theotokopoulos & Associates.
The Respondent: The Carian Confederacy, legally represented by the Secretary of State for Justice, which was represented in court by the Chairman of the Legal Council of the State, D. Galatas.

The instant action lies from application for judicial review № 95-998/2021 made to this Court by the applicants in first and final instance by way of art. 95 of the Constitution, alleging violations of articles 1, 5, 6, 9, 101 and 102 of the Constitution by the Government of the Carian Confederacy due to the enactment of Act № 402/2021 by the Common Parliament of Caria and the promulgation thereof by the Council of State of Caria as a Law of the State. Three of the applicants, the Association for the Advancement of Women’s Rights “Leto”, the Carian Human Rights Federation and the Carian Physicians’ Association, filed separate applications by way of art. 94 of the Constitution (№ 94-999/2021, 94-1000/2021 & 94-1003/2021), seeking identical relief with regard to the same subject matter as the other applicants. These later applications were joined to the present action at the instance of the Petitioner and with the approval of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Consistorium. The applicants collectively seek a declaration that the impugned act is ultra vires the Government of the Carian Confederacy, or, in the alternative, that it violates one or more of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Second Part of the Constitution, and that it is, therefore, of no legal force and effect. The respondent denies all claims made by the applicants and seeks a dismissal thereof as lacking basis.

HAS REASONED ACCORDING TO THE LAW
Act № 402/2021 “Amendments to the Confederal Penal Code regarding the unlawful termination of pregnancy” (hereinafter the “Act”) was enacted by the Common Parliament and the Council of State of Caria with a view to criminalizing abortion across the State. The Act is couched on the Confederal Government’s power to make common regulations and set common standards to ensure the uniform quality of governmental services across the country; this power is implied in art. 101 par. 3 of the Constitution, which grants the Confederal Government the “coordination and verification of the actions of the organs of government of the Polities”. This power extends to all powers granted to the Polities of Caria by arts. 101 and 102 of the Constitution, including healthcare.

This Court has long found that abortion constitutes a medical procedure (see e.g. decisions № 332/1991 in criminal matters, № 47/2003 in constitutional matters, № 161/2012 in civil matters and № 299/2017 in administrative matters). It is settled law that both orders of government have the power to criminalize or otherwise restrict medical procedures (decision of this Court № 44/2007 regarding assisted motherhood and № 151/2019 regarding sex change surgery). However, the Confederal Government may only make such regulations regarding medical procedures as are strictly necessary to ensure a commonality of standards across Caria; substantively defining the modalities of a Polity’s medical system fall to the Government of that Polity.

Here, the prohibition of abortion constitutes a common medical standard, as it imposes common conditions on all Carian Polities for the circumstances under which abortion may be performed (specifically, in case of rape, incest, or grave danger to the mother’s health or life), as well as the formalities needed to verify these circumstances (specifically, a physician’s official opinion to that effect, as well as that of a prosecutor in cases of rape or incest), and penalties for violations of these standards (which are inflicted upon violating medical professionals and/or other performers of illegal abortion, rather than upon the mother). These provisions are all indicative of a set of regulatory requirements enforced by common professional and penal sanctions, both of which are valid means of enforcement of common standards. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that it seeks, in any way, to control the particular modalities or organisational structure of each Polity’s medical system, including with particular regard to abortion. Moreover, Polities are still free to enact criminal laws or other standards regarding abortion—the only condition imposed by the Act (by virtue art. 101 par. 3 of the Constitution) is that these standards may not be any less stringent than those enunciated in the Act. As such, the Act is intra vires the Confederal Government, meaning that all of the applicants’ arguments under arts. 101 and 102 must fail. Any argument that the Act violates Caria’s character as a confederal (and not unitary) state under art. 1 must also, therefore, fail.

It is long settled law that both the Confederal and Polity Governments may outlaw or otherwise restrict abortion without violating the right to personal freedom under art. 5 of the Constitution (decision of this Court № 51/1961). Personal freedom concerns a person’s ability to freely develop their personality and to otherwise dispose of their person as they see fit without violating the rights of others; abortion implicates the life of the unborn child, as well as broader societal interests in the reproduction and preservation of the Nation, and the protection of children. A person may not dispose of their life in a way that actively hurts their own children. Since Caria is a democratic society, the determination of whether conduct constitutes such harm lies with the Common Parliament and the legislatures of the Polities; the Court must defer to them.

The right to personal safety under art. 6 of the Constitution does not include the right bring a premature end to another’s life or to avoid the birth of one’s child. This is particularly true when dealing with a law that includes several reasonable exceptions (for criminal conception and for danger to the mother’s life or health). The requirement for external verification of these circumstances (by a physician and/or a prosecutor, as the case may be) is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, but it is reasonably connected to the Government’s interest in ensuring that exceptions to its standards are only used in those case for which they were truly intended. Likewise, the need for parental or guardian permission to undergo abortion is consistent with standard practice for any invasive medical procedure when dealing with minors or otherwise legally incapacitated individuals. In a society with wide access to sexual education and contraception, as well as freely available high-quality medical care, pregnancy cannot be said to constitute a “risk” in and of itself. The law does and must regard human birth as an inherently good thing; and though individuals are perfectly free to disagree and to wish to avoid pregnancy, that does not entitle them to illegally and retroactively bring an end to a pregnancy when a range of alternatives are available to them, and they have nonetheless chosen to engage in sexual activity, with or without contraception (which is, itself, known to not be a perfect guarantee against pregnancy). On this count, the Court must find that the applicants’ arguments are entirely baseless.

Art. 9 of the Constitution seeks to protect privacy, which must be construed consistently with the intent underlying the article’s enactment. In particular, this intent includes a wish to protect Carians’ private communications, domiciles, conversations, and familial life from government surveillance, interference and coercion, absent any compelling government objectives and the lack of any more narrowly tailored means to achieve the same end. Thus, nothing in this article concerns medical procedures, bodily autonomy or abortion per se. Indeed, familial life within the meaning of this article must be understood as the relations, communications and interactions between family members (for example, in terms of their ability to testify against one another in court or to be compelled to do so); it does not mean, and must not be taken to mean, family planning or the choice to produce offspring. Whereas Carians may not be prevented from bearing children under art. 5 of the Constitution, that has little to do with abortion, which is a medical procedure meant to prevent childbirth. Therefore, it must become clear that any arguments against the Act cannot be couched in the language of art. 9 of the Constitution. Given the failure of all arguments against the Act based on the Second Part of the Constitution, the Act is hereby held to comply with all fundamental rights protections of the Constitution and is therefore constitutionally valid.

FOR THESE REASONS
REJECTS the applications of the applicants № 95-998/2021, 94-999/2021, 94-1000/2021 & 94-1003/2021 to this Court seeking a declaration that Act № 402/2021 is unconstitutional.
JUDGED and decided in Nauplia on 6 January 2022.
PUBLISHED in Nauplia in a public session, at the Court’s hearing chambers, on 7 January 2022.​

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COURT
(L.S.) Georgios Polyzoïdis

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT
(L.S.) Konstantinos Papoulis

THE EDITOR OF THE COURT BULLETIN
(L.S.) Gregorios Metaxas

 

[Pelasgia]

You must be registered for see images

Carian Confederacy Secretariat of State for Justice Procuratorate General of the State Judicial District of Nikaia Doc. № 89.23/2022

HEADING OF CRIMINAL INDICTMENT
Per art. 343 Confed. Cod. Pen. Proc. (N. 4620/2019)
​

IN NIKAIA, on this 14th day of January 2022, before the Confederal Criminal Court (Pierrheia Division, District of Nikaia):

Elpinike Frangopoulou, daughter of Matthaios and Theodora (née Mitropoulou), citizen of the Deme of Nikaia, stands charged
1 That she conspired with other persons to publicly insult and to physically assail the First Archon of State, thereby violating article 135 of the Confederal Penal Code (conspiracy).
2 That she publicly insulted and physically assailed the First Archon of State, thereby violating article 134 of the Confederal Penal Code (attack on the Head of State) .
3 That she conspired with other persons to assassinate the First Archon of State, thereby violating articles 42 (attempt) and 299 (premeditated murder) of the Confederal Penal Code, and that she did so with the intent to deprive the First Archon of State of the lawful exercise of his official functions, thereby violating article 134 of the Confederal Penal Code (high treason).
4 That she attempted, in coordination with other persons, to assassinate the First Archon of State, thereby violating article 42 of the Confederal Penal Code (attempt), and that she did so with the intent to deprive the First Archon of State of the lawful exercise of his official functions, thereby violating article 134 of the Confederal Penal Code (high treason).
5 That she participated in a conspiracy resulting in grievous bodily injury and attempted murder of an officer of the law discharging his official functions, which are violations of articles 42 (attempt), 299 (premeditated murder), 310 (infliction of grievous bodily harm), 315 (bodily harm against a police officer) of the Confederal Penal Code, and is thereby held to be liable as the principal culprit for both offences under 45 of the Confederal Penal Code (liability for co-conspirators’ crimes).
6 That she took part in and thereby constituted a criminal organisation in violation and within the meaning of article 187 of the Confederal Penal Code (criminal organisation).
7 That she committed the aforementioned offences in such a way and with a view to terrorize the Carian and international public, the State, and the citizenry, and to thereby move them politically in a particular way, and thus committed an act of terror in violation and within the meaning of article 187A of the Confederal Penal Code (terrorism).

By reason whereof the Prosecution will be seeking, among other punishments, a penalty of death for one or more of the crimes charged.​

Signed and sealed,
s/ Θαλής Κορδελιώτης
Thales A. Kordeliotes
Procurator General of the State
(L.S.)

 

[Pelasgia]

You must be registered for see images GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF CARIA VOLUME I | ISSUE NO. 4​

Decree of the Council of State № 17/2022
Pardon of Elpinike Μ. Frangopoulou

THE COUNCIL OF STATE

Considering that:

1. Elpinike Frangopoulou, daughter of Matthaios and Theodora (née Mitropoulou), citizen of the Deme of Nikaia has been charged with several crimes against the State and public order by way of Criminal Indictment (Doc. № 89.23/2022 of the Procurator General of State's office for Judicial District of Nikaia, the Pierrheia Division of the Confederal Criminal Court, in the District of Nikaia).
2. The said Elpinike Μ. Frangopoulou has since agreed to cooperate with the authorities in the the investigation of the events leading to the aforementioned charges being levied against her, and in the prosecution of any and all persons involved therein.

We decree:

Article 1
1. Elpinike Frangopoulou, daughter of Matthaios and Theodora (née Mitropoulou), citizen of the Deme of Nikaia is hereby pardoned of all offences that she stands charged of by way of the Criminal Indictment brought against her on 14 January 2022 (Doc. № 89.23/2022 of the Procurator General of the State's office for the Judicial District of Nikaia before the Pierrheia Division of the Confederal Criminal Court in the District of Nikaia).
2. No subsequent liability of any kind may lie against the pardonee based upon any facts giving rise to the charges contemplated in the previous item, except as otherwise indicated in this document for violations of this pardon.

Article 2
1. Any refusal to cooperate with the authorities regarding the matters mentioned in the preamble to this decree, or any failure to do so fully and honestly by way of act, word, deed, or omission, shall lead to a complete renunciation of this pardon by the pardonee.
2. Following renunciation of this decree, the pardonee may be charged with the same offences that she was previously accused of, in addition to any new offences that the Procurator General of the State deems to be appropriate.

Article 3
This decree enters into force immediately upon its publication in the Government Gazette.

Nauplia, 16 January 2022

The Chairman of the Council of State
IOANNES S. NOTARAS

The Superintendent General of State
ANASTASIOS G. KALAMARAS

In attestation of the authenticity of this decree, the Superintendent General has
caused the Great Seal of State of the Carian Confederacy to be affixed thereupon.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Pelasgia]

You must be registered for see images GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF CARIA VOLUME I | ISSUE NO. 4​

Royal Decree № 53/2022
Ennoblement of Anastasios G. Kalamaras

IOANNES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING OF CARIA

Considering that:

1. Anastasios Kalamaras, son of Georgios and Aikaterini (née Pyrgiotou), citizen of the Deme of Neolcus has loyally served the Carian State over many decades as State Jurist, Councilor of State, Superintendent General, and, finally, Prime Minister.
2. The said Anastasios G. Kalamaras has proven instrumental in safeguarding the unity and territorial integrity of the State and the safety of the King from conspiracies against His Majesty's life.
3. Anastasios Kalamaras is descended on his mother's side truly and lawfully from Georgios Sphrantzas, Timariote (Count) of the City of Karavas on the island of Kyparissos, and Lord (Authente) of the Town of Hagios Georgios in Cordelium.

We decree:

Article 1
1. Anastasios G. Kalamaras is created Lord Kalamaras, Timariote (Count) of the City of Karavas on the island of Kyparissos, and Lord (Authente) of the Town of Hagios Georgios in Cordelium.
2. In recognition of his noble status, Lord Kalamaras is entitled to a monthly pension of 4.000,00 Obols, adjusted for inflation and due for the duration of his life, paid from the Royal Chancellery.

Article 2
Lord Kalamaras is created a Privy Councilor and a Peer of the Realm, and thereby entitled to all the privileges appertaining to such persons.

Article 3
The privileges and rights granted to Lord Kalamaras, including his title, are freely descendible to his true-born heirs and successors, save for the position of Privy Councilor.

Article 4
This decree enters into force immediately upon its publication in the Government Gazette.​

Nauplia, 2 February 2022

IOANNES R.

(L.S.)​