What's new

Judiciary of Pelasgia

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
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
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
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:

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
Administrative Court of First Instance of Propontis
Publications / Decisions

Interim relief against potential double taxation - Ability of State to levy tax beyond own sovereign territory through domestic legislation
05/02/2021

ΔΠΠ 1/2021, Plenary
Interim relief can be granted in cases where a proposed measure or action by the respondent constitutes an urgency or immediate danger for the applicant (art.682 Cod.Adm.Proc.). The proposed statute, № 29/2021 "Respecting overseas citizens' taxation and fees for overseas civil registry acts and other consular services", would establish a tax levy for Pelasgian nationals residing abroad. Given that the deadline for tax declarations is less than three months away and that the present case is likely to entail multiple appeals at different levels, it can be established that the applicant would likely suffer double taxation before the end of constitutional review of the proposed statute in question. The applicant, as shown by evidence submitted, lacks the means to make such payments, forcing him to either entail criminal penalties in Pelasgia or in his country of residence. As such, the applicant can seek interim relief. Subject to the applicant's request, the Court has suspended the effect of all Articles of Part I of the proposed statute № 29/2021 until the end of all Appeals lying from the present Decision.

With regard to the constitutional challenge submitted by the applicant, the Court notes that the present Constitution of the Pelasgian Union notes Pelasgia's adherence to the generally recognised rules of international law (art.2 Const.). The Constitution also enshrines the effect of all Pelasgian legislation across Pelasgia's territory, unless otherwise specified in the legislation itself (art.105 Const.). This provision is meant to enable the Common Parliament of Pelasgia to exclude certain territories from the application of its laws (particularly the historic entities that were Monastic Regions, Despotates, and Free Cities), and not to expand its own legislative power beyond its borders. Nevertheless, certain Pelasgian statutes have been judged to be constitutional despite alleging to have force and effect beyond Pelasgia's borders (notably, Statute № 47/1997 "Regarding piracy and maritime safety" and Statute № 99/1999 "Regarding the persecution of human rights violations"). However, such statutes are legal under Pelasgia's obligation to uphold international law (art.2 Const.), as they merely enshrine the peremptory norms of international law (i.e., the prosecution of crimes known to customary and conventional international law). The same cannot be said of proposed statute № 29/2021, which is merely a tax instrument. Seeing no constitutional foundation for this statute, and opposing it against the principle of territorial jurisdiction and national sovereignty enshrined in customary and conventional international law, Part I of the proposed statute must fail as unconstitutional under Article 2 of the Constitution (fundamental obligation of the State to abide by and uphold international law).

Having reached this conclusion, the Court will not examine arguments regarding Articles 107 (protection of shipping and overseas capital investments) and 108 (duty to protect and maintain links with the Pelasgian diaspora) of the Constitution. These arguments may be raised on Appeal.
The publication of the content of this website is only permitted through its original, freely accessible webpage, with reference to the source at the beginning of the publication.
 
Last edited:

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
Administrative Court of First Instance of Propontis
Publications / Decisions

Interim relief against constitutional rights infringement - Ability of State to legislate limits on abortion through penal law
09/02/2021

ΔΠΠ 4/2021, Plenary
Interim relief can be granted in cases where a proposed measure or action by the respondent constitutes an urgency or immediate danger for the applicant (art.682 Cod.Adm.Proc.). Act № 37/2021 "Amending the Penal Code with respect to abortion" removes one ground for therapeutic abortion permitted by the Penal Code, namely that of "serious danger that the mother's physical or mental well-being might be disturbed" and significantly restricts another by requiring that all medical diagnoses regarding congenital disease be certified by a doctor on penalty of professional and penal liability (art.304 Pen.Cod.). The applicant submits that, as a pregnant woman whose physical or mental well-being might be disturbed by her pregnancy, she suffers an immediate danger due to the measure at hand. Given that penal legislation properly enacted by the Common Parliament lies outside the ordinary ambit of administrative review, and given that exempting an individual from the application of a duly enacted penal law would be contrary to public order and good morals, the Court rejects the applicant's request for interim relief as inadmissible.

With regard to the constitutional challenge submitted by the applicant, the Court notes the multiplicity of articles of the present Constitution cited by the applicant in her submission: arts. 5 (personal freedom), 6 (personal safety), 7 (nulla poena sine lege), 9A (privacy), 20 (lawful protection, right to an audience), 21 (protection of family) and 25 (welfare state, protection of fundamental rights). The Court deals with these as follows; claims allegedly founded in Articles 7, 9, 20 and 21 are summarily dismissed as inapplicable - nulla poena sine lege does not apply since the Penal Code is a law and provides for punishments for violations of art. 304; privacy within the meaning of art. 9A covers one's personal information, not one's body; lawful protection and right to an audience are both guaranteed by constitutional review through this Court; the protection of the family is intended to cover the State's obligation to provide for the proper development of the family unit through legal recognition, not for individual bodily liberties - infanticide, as defined by the Penal Code, is not part of the development of the family.

In so far as the remaining claims of the applicant are concerned, the Court finds as follows: personal freedom (art. 5) is limited to the extent that it constitutes abuse of right (art. 25) - the Common Parliament is within its right to determine whether acts outlawed by the penal law constitute such abuse, and Courts must defer to this definition; personal safety (art. 6) must be weighed against broader social interests - none of the evidence submitted by the applicant shows that danger to herself that outweighs public interest in protecting unborn life (i.e., grave danger to life or health) cannot be covered by the remainder of art. 304 Pen.Cod. as currently envisaged to the exclusion of abortion deemed unnecessary or non-therapeutic by the Common Parliament. In so far as art. 25 Const. is concerned, neither the foundation of the welfare state nor the obligation to protect fundamental rights can supersede the ban against abuse of right contained within art. 25 itself; criminalized acts, by their very nature, constitute abuse of right. Abortion has never been legal in Pelasgia; it is an unlawful and antisocial act, as determined by the Common Parliament, with certain exceptions for limited circumstances where it could have therapeutic purposes. The applicant has failed to show that the amendments effected by Act № 37/2021 do not adequately cover such circumstances; particularly, there is no reasonably conceivable issue with requiring medical diagnoses under art 304 to be certified to ensure the avoidance of medical malpractice that could allow non-therapeutic occurrence of an act outlawed by the penal law. As such, the applicant's constitutional claims must fail.
The publication of the content of this website is only permitted through its original, freely accessible webpage, with reference to the source at the beginning of the publication.
 

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
Application 27/2021 (Certiorari) - DENIED

----

Appl. № 27/2021
THE GENERAL COURT OF UNIVERSAL JUDICATURE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI

- DENIED -


Interim relief against constitutional rights infringement - Ability of State to legislate limits on abortion through penal law

Indexed as: ΓΔΚΚ (Πιστ.) 27/2021
Presiding: G. Polyzoïdis, Pr.U.J.

HAVING CONSIDERED the application for certiorari submitted by the appellant, ... , for an appeal against decision ΔΕΠ 2/2021 of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Propontis, itself upholding decision ΔΠΠ 4/2021 of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Propontis, regarding the constitutionality of Law № 37/2021 "Amending the Penal Code with respect to abortion", and having equally considered the response submitted by the respondent, the Minister of Justice of the Pelasgian Union,

DENIES the application for certiorari № 27/2021 lying from decision ΔΕΠ 2/2021 of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Propontis.

Decided and ordered in Propontis, on 18 February 2021.
Published in Propontis, on 18 February 2021.

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

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT
(L.S.)
Gregorios Metaxas
 

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
Administrative Court of First Instance of Propontis
Publications / Applications

Application for injunctive relief - Sales of armament and materiel to "oppressive regimes" - DENIED
28/04/2021

ΔΠΠ Αιτ. υπ' αρ. 143/2021 (Appl. № 143/2021)
Interim relief can be granted in cases where a proposed measure or action by the respondent constitutes an urgency or immediate danger for the applicant (art.682 Cod.Adm.Proc.). There is no realistic way in which the decision of the Government of the Pelasgian Union to authorize the sale of arms and other materiel to foreign regimes could pose an immediate danger for the applicant, ... , who is a private citizen. Pelasgia is not in a state of war with any country at this moment, nor is there any realistic reason to believe that it will enter into a state of war, such that the applicant's interests could be imperiled. Moreover, even if there were a danger of war or other armed confrontation between Pelasgia and another State, such a matter falls strictly within the purview of the Government's own executive powers, and beyond judicial or administrative control. The Government is immune from judicial review in decisions falling within the ambit of its executive and legislative powers, unless the exercise of those powers contravenes the Constitution (which, at any rate, would be a matter for the Constitutional Court, and not for this Court). This is a principle that is ingrained in the very fabric of our constitutional law, and any derogation therefrom would render a legitimately elected government impotent to pursue its policy. The characterization of the foreign regimes targeted by this application as "oppressive", a word that is broad to the point of meaninglessness and hitherto unknown to Pelasgian Law, does not alter any of these fundamental principles. The application is dismissed with costs.
The publication of the content of this website is only permitted through its original, freely accessible webpage, with reference to the source at the beginning of the publication.
 

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
Decision 23/2021 (Plenary)
Subject
Constitutionality, Separation of Powers

Summary:
Constitutionality and separation of powers. Rejecting arguments regarding
alleged infringement of powers. Rejecting arguments regarding unconstitutionality
of broader scheme. Application denied.

----

You must be registered for see images


№ 23/2021
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
PLENARY


In re parliamentary oversight of overseas deployments

Indexed as: ΣΔ (Ολ.) 1/2021
Presiding: A. Zephyropoulos, P.C.C.
Coram: [...]

Convened in public at its Seat on 2 June 2021 to hear the application of the applicant, the President of the Pelasgian Union ("President"), who was represented by the Procurator General of the Pelasgian Union, 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 constitutionality of Special Law №44/2021 "Respecting parliamentary oversight of overseas deployments".

The Court was seized of this matter pursuant to an application by the President subject to its original and final jurisdiction in all cases of constitutional review, as per Article 100 of the Constitution of the Pelasgian Union and in accordance with Presidential Decree 28/2021 "Respecting Judicial Organisation". No appeal may lie from this decision. The applicant requests that the Court invalidate Special Law №44/2021 "Respecting parliamentary oversight of overseas deployments" as unconstitutional and to strike it from the Law of Pelasgia.

Having heard,
The duly empowered attorney of the applicant, 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 Special Law №44/2021 "Respecting parliamentary oversight of overseas deployments" ("the statute") is to establish control by the Common Parliament, as the elected representative of the Pelasgian People, over the deployment of Pelasgian military assets outside Pelasgia in times of peace. The statute is phrased to include both regular military forces and materiel, a measure which would allow the legislature of the Union to control lend-lease programmes, military aid, and training or assistance programmes, as well as direct military operations. Moreover, the statute empowers the Common Parliament to control the deployment of private security and other forces, so long as the use of these forces is funded to any extent by Pelasgian State funds, directly or indirectly. Peacekeeping operations, advisory operations, and military assistance are all covered by the statute. As such, Special Law №44/2021 effectively operates to grant the legislature oversight and veto power over peacetime overseas military deployments made by the executive.

Whereas the statute has been approved by both houses of the Common Parliament and has been signed by the Prime Minister and all appropriate Ministers, the President refuses to grant Sovereign Assent. The President submits that the statute oversteps the Common Parliament's jurisdiction and seeks to abolish the presidential system envisaged in the Constitution of the Union, replacing it with a parliamentary system of governance. More specifically, the President submits that Chapter Two of Section II of Part Three of the Constitution vests the power to declare war, along with supreme command of all Pelasgian military and security forces, in the President; therefore, the argument goes, parliamentary control thereover would abolish the President's powers without a constitutional amendment.

The Minister responds that the statute falls outside the presidential powers enumerated in the Constitution. Namely, the Constitution gives the President the power to declare war and to sue for peace, as well as supreme command over military forces, but it does not empower him to circumvent the constitutional and legal rules incumbent upon a declaration of war. Namely, the Minister asserts that Chapter Five of Section III of Part Three of the Constitution gives the Common Parliament control over declarations of war and peace treaties, as the approval of both the Boule of Representatives and the Senate is required for either measure. Moreover, the Minister submits that material support and taxpayer-funded operations fall under its control of expenses during peacetime, absent a declaration of a State of Siege under Article 48 of the Constitution.

The Minister's argument reflects the state of the law in Pelasgia. The President is not empowered to unilaterally deploy military forces and material abroad, directly or indirectly, without the approval of the Cabinet and, in some cases, the Common Parliament. This does not conflict with the President's power to deploy military forces and assets for preliminary defence, as the statute contains an exception to that effect in the form of Article 22. However, that exception also requires that such deployments be notified to the Cabinet and Common Parliament, or the appropriate Committees thereof, without undue delay. The President asserts that this constitutes an infringement of executive powers. Respectfully, this argument cannot stand; oversight over the exercise of a power is not the same thing as usurpation thereof. At any rate, the power in question is concerned with war and not with peacetime. The President cannot use peacetime powers to circumvent the current legal modalities on declaring war; this law is meant to reinforce that prohibition, which is a valid objective.

FOR THESE REASONS
Denies the application of the applicant, the President of the Pelasgian Union, to invalidate Special Law №44/2021 "Respecting parliamentary oversight of overseas deployments" as unconstitutional and to strike it from the Law of Pelasgia.

Judged and decided in Propontis, on 2 June 2021.
Published in Propontis, in a public session at the Court's hearing room, on 2 June 2021.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
(L.S.) Alexandros Zaphyropoulos

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT
(L.S.)
Markos Komnenos
 
Last edited:

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
File No.: 4456/2021
[FILED]
----

You must be registered for see images

PELASGIAN STATE
ORCHOMENUS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PETITION
(For setting trial date by preference)
Petitioner: Polykastro (Municipality)
Tax Registry No.: [...]
Authorised Attorney: Nikolaos Alexopoulos

[personal information omitted]

TO
The Hon. President of the Tripartite Administrative Council of the Orchomenus Court of First Instance


I humbly request that Suit No. 456/2021 by the Municipality of Polykastro against the Holy Monastery of Chrysopyrgos before the Orchomenus Court of First Instance be set down for trial on or before July 23, 2021, for the reason that the defendant, the Holy Monastery of Chrysopyrgos, has refused to engage in pre-trial mediation despite formally contesting the claim levied against it in the plaintiff's letter of demand (File No. [...]) of July 14, 2021.
s/ Nikolaos Alexopoulos
The petitioning authorised attorney

---

SUIT NO. 456/2021


THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIPARTITE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF THE ORCHOMENUS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Considering article 226 par. 5 of the Cod. of Civ. Proc., which was enacted by article 3 par. 3 of Law 3327/2005 and for the reasons inscribed in the foregoing petition

Grants the petition.

Orchomenus, Friday, 16 July 2021.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIPARTITE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF THE ORCHOMENUS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 

Pelasgia

Elder Statesman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,934
Location
Athens, Greece
Capital
Decelea
Nick
Demos
You must be registered for see images

PELASGIAN STATE
ORCHOMENUS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CIVIL CHAMBER


DECISION
Court of First Instance of Orchomenus, Civil Chamber (Tripartite)
Publications / Decisions
Land dispute - Recognition of Imperial Chrysoboule - Default Judgment
23/07/2021
ΑΠΟ 456/2021, Tripartite
Plaintiff, Municipality of Polykastron ("Municipality"), alleges that defendant, Holy Monastery of Chrysopyrgos ("Monastery"), illegally occupies land assigned to it by the cadastral map of the Province of Orchomenus. Municipality presents evidence of civil administration and occupation of these lands dating back to the town's foundation in 1223 AD, alleging preeminence of temporal character of lands' ownership despite occasional shared use with Monastery (itself founded in 1471 AD). Municipality alleges that Imperial Chrysoboule (17 Manuel VIII [1471], No. 44 - "Chrysoboule") submitted by Monastery in its preliminary response is inapplicable due to three reasons. First, Chrysoboule is of doubtful accuracy, as it is most likely a much later copy and the original has been lost from the Imperial Archives in Propontis. Second, Chrysoboule lacks specific language covering the disputed land parcels, and instead only specifically refers to an olive grove on the far side of Monastery grounds. Third, Chrysoboule cannot found property in Pelasgian Law alone--it must be accompanied by a recognition of the modern Pelasgian State, usually in the form of an official Proclamation, Ordinance, or Certified Letter confirming its contents and the legal rights it seeks to create. Monastery has failed to respond to these charges, citing its alleged "ancient privilege against compulsion by and before a secular court". Privilege itself, if it ever existed, has been extinguished by Part II of the present Constitution of Pelasgia. Therefore, Monastery can be considered to have failed to appear to contest the charges made against it. As such, the Court grants Municipality's motion for default judgment.
FOR THESE REASONS,
The Court decides and ordains that the lands claimed by Municipality and presently occupied by Monastery appertain and belong to the former, and that the latter must therefore immediately surrender possession thereof to Municipality.
The publication of the content of this website is only permitted through its original, freely accessible webpage, with reference to the source at the beginning of the publication.
 
Top