What's new

Judiciary of Pelasgia

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,730
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Propontis
Nick
Demos
General Court of Universal Judicature
Bi-Monthly Docket – January-February 2021

Plenary Session

  • No. 1/2021 (Const.; Admin.) – Revolutionary Socialist Party of Pelasgia v. Minister of Justice: whether the respondent can petition the federal judiciary to ban the appellant as an illegal party threatening the constitutional order of the Union
  • No. 4/2021 (Crim.; Corp.; Tax) – Kosmos Super Markets S.A. v. National Tax Agency: whether appellant can be held liable for improper tax declarations by independent accountant; whether appellant can be held liable in tax for overseas subsidiary, and whether said subsidiary is a distinct legal person
Division I – Civil Cassation
  • No. 2/2021 (Evidence) – Pegasos Automobiles S.A. v. Herakles Heavy Industries Ltd.: whether evidence of copyright breach obtained in violation of solicitor-client privilege can be used in matter unrelated to violation
  • No. 3/2021 (Obls.) – Th. v. General Insurance Co. of Pelasgia S.A.: whether the appellant can claim compensation from husband’s life insurance contract after husband deceased due to own illegal acts
Division II – Criminal Cassation
  • No. 5/2021 (Evidence; Pres. of Innocence) – Prosecutor (Propontis, Appellate) v. L.: whether a less stringent burden of proof exists for cases of rape dating to before the prescription period for corresponding civil matters
  • No. 7/2021 (Offences) – K.P. v. Prosecutor (Metaxoupolis, First Inst.): whether appellant park ranger committed a crime by falsely claiming to be a federal police officer to discourage an attacker committing a violent assault with a deadly weapon against him
  • No. 9/2021 (Sentencing) – A. v. Procurator General (U.J.): statutory de novo review of death sentence for capital murder
Division III – Constitutional Review
  • No. 8/2021 (Privacy; Police Powers) – National Civil Guard v. Konstantinides: whether appellant violated respondent’s constitutional rights by forcibly gaining access to his electronic devices during a search incident to arrest
Division IV – Administrative Review
  • No. 6/2021 (Compensation) – Pan-Pelasgian Confederation of Firemens’ Labour Unions v. Ministry of Finance: whether government erred in denying special compensation to firemen injured during forest fires caused by governmental negligence in infrastructure construction and planning
  • No. 10/2021 (State Liability) – A. v. Ministry of the Interior: whether the government can be held liable for excessive use of force of civil guard officer who rendered a journalist deaf by illegally deploying stun grenade in contravention of training and rules of engagement
 
Last edited:

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,730
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Propontis
Nick
Demos
Decision 1/2021 (Plenary)
Subject
Constitutionality, Equal Protection

Summary:
Constitutionality and equal protection. Rejecting arguments regarding
individual rights of members. Rejecting arguments regarding unconstitutionality
of broader scheme. Appeal denied.

----

№ 1/2021
THE GENERAL COURT OF UNIVERSAL JUDICATURE
PLENARY


In re Revolutionary Socialist Party of Pelasgia

Indexed as: ΓΔΚΚ (Ολ.) 1/2021
Presiding: G. Polyzoïdis, Pr.U.J.
Coram: A. Tsertsetis, V.P.U.J.; K. Theodorakopoulos V.P.U.J.; M. Adamidis, V.P.U.J.; P. Thermiotis, V.P.U.J.; T. Papanikos, 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 U.J.J.

Convened in public at its Seat on 12 January 2021 to hear the application of the appellant, Revolutionary Socialist Party of Pelasgia ("ESKP"), who was represented by Markos Agraphiotis, and the opposing arguments of the respondent, the Minister of Justice of the Pelasgian Union ("Minister"), who was represented by Gregorios Dimitriadis of the Legal Council of the State, regarding the overturning of decision № 344/2020 (Συντ.) of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Propontis.

The Administrative Court of Appeal of Propontis, through its aforementioned decision, upheld a decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Propontis. There, the Court of First Instance denied the appellant's request to invalidate as unconstitutional the respondent's decision to declare the appellant an illegal association under Article 52 of the "Act respecting the protection of the Political Constitution of the Union" (Statute № 2928/2001).

Having heard,
The duly empowered attorney of the appellant, who requested what is described in the pertinent records of the Court, and the response of the duly empowered attorney of the respondent, which is recorded in the pertinent records of the Court,

HAS REASONED ACCORDING TO THE LAW THAT
The purpose of the "Act respecting the protection of the Political Constitution of the Union" (Statute № 2928/2001) is precisely to outlaw and suppress associations, of a political or other nature, which seek to overthrow, frustrate, usurp, render nugatory or otherwise impede the lawful Constitution of the Pelasgian Union, as indicated by the commentary of the Minister of Justice in service and the relevant Committees of the Common Parliament in session at the time of its adoption. Article 52 of that Statute empowers the Minister of Justice, at the request of the Prime Minister or propio motu, to declare a body an "illegal association" for the purposes of the Statute. Such an association is defined as one that "seeks to [...] overturn, illegal modify or destroy the Constitution of the Union". According to Article 1 and the preambulatory provisions of Statute № 2928/2001, the Statute in question was enacted pursuant to Article 120 of the present Constitution of the Pelasgian Union, which empowers the State to take all necessary measures to protect the Constitution, and likewise empowers the citizenry to do the same.

ESKP has never denied that its ultimate and fundamental goal is the destruction of the the Constitution of Pelasgia, as stated in its founding document. The document in question describes the Union as a "bourgeois dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, wholly illegitimate in the eyes of the people", further proclaiming that "it is the duty of every Pelasgian worker to drown such a regime in a sea of blood, and to cast it down and destroy it completely" (pp. 1, 3). ESKP contends that it means to pursue its programme through peaceful means; that is, it seeks to take part in ordinary democratic elections and conduct ordinary campaigns, as any registered political party does. Setting aside the inconsistency of this message, inscribed in its latest electoral programme as submitted to the Independent Electoral Authority and the Ministry of the Interior, with ESKP's founding document (which advocates for the use of violent measures and "direct action" at several points), the primary question that arises is whether a political party can use the lawful avenues of the Union to "destroy" its Constitution.

Evidently, the fundamental purpose of an election is to determine who shall wield power within the confines of the Constitution and the Laws already enacted by the relevant State organs. It is not up to the elected officials to modify these instruments beyond that which is allowed by the said instruments themselves through the appropriate legal avenues. Given that certain Articles of the Constitution explicitely place themselves outside of the amendment mechanism (especially those set out in Part I, "Fundamental Provisions"), it is impossible for a party to both respect the Constitutional and legal boundaries of Pelasgian electoral politics and to seek to "destroy" or otherwise alter them fundamentally. That is to say, Pelasgian democracy, like any well-founded and properly functioning democracy, does not consist of mere majoritarianism; one's majority in an election, no matter how great, does not entitle them to abolish or overturn the Constitution and, by extent, the State. Elected officials are elected to operate within the confines of the Constitution, and are required to uphold the said Constitution, not subvert it.

The most fundamental task of any polity must be its self-preservation; without this, the polity itself is incapable of performing the services it owes to its citizenry. Much like a living organism, the State must first and foremost survive in order to pursue its other tasks. When any body, internal or external, actively threatens that survival, the State cannot allow it continue to do so, lest it abolish itself or invite its own abolition. In the case of ESKP, the Minister acted properly in defending the State and rights of the citizens that the State is tasked with upholding as per the Constitution from a body seeking to abolish the aforementioned, regardless of the said body's methods, espoused or actual. The claim of illegality is therefore unfounded. Moreover, the claim of unreasonableness or arbitrary behaviour is also unfounded, given that, by all accounts, this was precisely the operation of Article 52 envisaged by the Legislator in its enactment of Statute № 2928/2001. Likewise, ESKP is precisely the sort of association targeted by Article 52; thus, a claim of error or improper application cannot be founded.

Any attempt to assail the Minister's decision must then finally rest on the illegality of the very Statute empowering the Minister to make that decision. In this case, Statute № 2928/2001 can be argued to be the Legislature's means of giving effect to the intent of Article 120 of the present Constitution of the Pelasgian Union, an argument which the Court accepts as valid. Having found a solid basis in the text of the Constitution, it must be shown that there is no inconsistency between the Statute founded in that part of the text and any other part of the same text. The appellant claims an inconsistency between the interpetation of Article 120 upon which the Statute is founded on the one hand, and Articles 4 (Equality), 5 (Personal freedom), 7 (Nulla poena sine lege), 8 (Right to a lawful judge), 12 (Freedom of association), 20 (Equal protection of the law, right to be heard), 23 (Freedom to form labour unions) and 29 (Political parties) on the other.

Briefly, the Court dimisses the arguments regarding Articles 7 (Nulla poena sine lege), 8 (Right to a lawful judge), 20 (Equal protection of the law, right to be heard) and 23 (Freedom to form labour unions) as unfounded. There is no punishment in the criminal sense, and the decision of the Minister is founded upon a lawful Statute; there is no right to a judge in administrative decisions, and the present appellate process has discharged any such right with respect to administrative review; there is no unequal protection here --- the Minister has suppressed illegal associations of various stripes and ideologies (see e.g., ΓΔΚΚ (Ποιν.) 62/2012: Minister of Justice v. National Phalanx); there is no labour union related to this dispute. Regarding the remaining arguments touching upon Articles 4 (Equality), 5 (Personal freedom), 12 (Freedom of association) and 29 (Political parties), the Court decides as follows: there is no violation of equality, as all citizens are equally required to respect and uphold the Constitution of the Union; personal freedom is naturally constrained by law where it violates the rights of others, public order, good morals, or the public interest; freedom of association does not extend to illegal associations, such as criminal bodies (see e.g., ΓΔΚΚ (Ποιν.) 17/2003: Procurator General (UJ) v. K.); political parties are required by the Constitution and by the electoral laws enacted thereunder to submit to and uphold the legal and Constitutional framework of the Union (Art. 29 Const., Arts. 1-3, 7, 16 Statute № 4654/2020: "Act respecting the holding of elections"). As such, all of the applicant's constitutional arguments must fail, meaning that both the decision itself and statute upon which it is founded are lawful, proper, reasonable, proportionate and constitutional.

FOR THESE REASONS
Denies the appeal of the appellant, Revolutionary Socialist Party of Pelasgia, to overturn decision № 344/2020 (Συντ.) of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Propontis.
Imposes costs for the appeal throughout upon the appellant, Revolutionary Socialist Party of Pelasgia.

Judged and decided in Propontis, on 15 January 2021.
Published in Propontis, in a public session at the Court's hearing room, on 18 January 2021.

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

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT
(L.S.)
Gregorios Metaxas
 
Last edited:
Top