Mr. Minister, Mr. Undersecretary, ladies and gentlemen, such days, before 109 years, the Greek liberation forces were fighting a strategically important battle with the Turkish army, at 9 and 10 October, in Sarandaporo. Which they finally captured after a fierce fight with an opponent, strong and with a geographical advantage.
They paid the price of victory, Nevertheless, expensive martyr Serbia with the massacre 117 citizens, priests, teachers, prequel. A day later, like today, to the sounds of bells, the Greek army was advancing in Kozani, paving the way for the liberation of Macedonia.
On her holidays, Well, today the capital of Western Macedonia, honors the fighters and the struggles for independence, democracy and justice.
The good of justice, and in particular the civil justice sector, aspires to serve and the bill that I have the honor to present before the House today.
Civil law (substantive and procedural) is a branch that regulates the affairs of individuals, arising in the context of the family, their social and professional life, as well as the rules for the judicial settlement of these disputes. Is, Well, obvious that quality in the administration of civil justice, affects the lives of all citizens and is democratic, biotic, social and development indicator for each country.
Important, Nevertheless, A condition for the proper functioning of justice is its award in a reasonable time, as the Constitution and the E.S.D.A. claim.
Something that, unfortunately, our judicial system has not succeeded to the desired degree, despite numerous relevant efforts.
It is clear that speeding up justice is a complex issue and requires:
- upgrading infrastructure,
- the modernization of systems,
- strengthening human resources,
- simplification of legislation,
- streamlining procedures and improving other parameters, affecting the various stages from the birth of the dispute to the award of legal protection, including the culture of each society.
Required, Well, systematic data monitoring and targeted intervention to address system vulnerabilities.
The requested draft law is moving in this direction.
Six years after the extensive changes of law 4335/2015, the Legislative Drafting Committee set up for this purpose, consisting of judges, teachers, lawyers, evaluated its results and suggested amendments to improve problematic provisions, resolving disagreements and filling in gaps in the Code of Civil Procedure.
On the basis of this processing, the draft law:
- introduces significant innovations,
- extends critical deadlines and rights,
- reinstates remedies that had been repealed,
- simplifies procedures and
- increases digital applications in civil justice.
During the parliamentary elaboration, Representatives of the opposition and the institutions acknowledged the shortcomings and agreed with the objectives and provisions of the draft law, formulated, sure, each one has his own reservations or even contradictions on specific issues.
The layout, Nevertheless, which aroused the greatest interest is undoubtedly the introduction of the Pilot Trial in civil justice, institution that has been applied for ten years in administration, with great success.
The aim is to resolve issues of wider interest in a uniform and safe way, that cause:
- congestion and delays in the delivery of justice,
- employment of a large number of judges and officials,
- inconvenience and expense to citizens
- and often lead to conflicting decisions and provoking legal uncertainty.
We encounter corresponding or similar institutions:
- in French law,
- in German law,
- at the Court of Auditors,
while there are similarities in the pilot trial of E.D.D.A..
So, It was deemed appropriate to extend the institution to civil procedure in order to serve the same objectives of decongestion, acceleration and legal certainty.
Opposition parties have stated they will not run in the by-elections, without being able to convincingly explain why they consider the institution acceptable and effective in administrative proceedings but not in civil proceedings.
Moreover, and the allegation of the alleged abolition of the right of every judge to diffuse and incidental review of constitutionality, also not correct, after the relevant decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, in the context of the Pilot Trial, It is a very strong case law but it will not bind other cases, other trials.
At this point, I have to go back and emphasize the awkward again, unfair and dangerous position of the representatives of the opposition, for the instrumentalization of civil litigation, which affects the prestige of judicial officials, when he delivers to the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, that it will serve political and economic interests, and judges of other levels that they will not have the stature to express their free and independent judgment.
So, Nevertheless, the citizens' sense of trust in the institution of justice as a whole is undermined.
Another issue that provoked reactions from part of the opposition is the new simplified procedure in Small Disputes.
But even here the objections are inexplicable, given the delay in these cases.
What is happening is that the Small Claims arrangements that have been tested in other types of cases are also adopted., Especially, for procedural acts and deadlines.
It is, after all, inconsistent with their object, that their trial be governed by a strict and formal framework, when other lawsuits with incomparably greater litigation have been simplified.
So, nor the receipt of affidavits without the summons of the other party, nor the evaluation of evidence, in addition to those provided by law, nor the submission of allegations and evidence by plain document – memorandum or on an electronic platform, really degrade the level of legal protection. The opposite, in fact.
The same applies to the joint statement of the parties for representation in trials:
- of the special procedure,
- of voluntary in the 2nd degree and
- in the consensual notes,
- which certainly do not infringe on the principle of orality, as they have a potential character and relate to cases in which the presence of the parties has now acquired a procedural, typical, character.
The partial reinstatement of the right of suspension in the opposition to the auction of mobile phones also caused a lot of discussion., which was also accompanied by a strong overdose.
This is because on the one hand the regulation constitutes an improvement in relation to the current ones and on the other hand because in the real estate it is possible to suspend, but by the court of appeal, which can be requested independently.
Consequently, nor are the properties deprived of judicial protection.
There, Nevertheless, that hypocrisy really hit red, was in the setting for the automatic gradual reduction of the auctioned price, after two fruitless auctions at 80% and after three at 65%.
This is because everyone knows that after two and three fruitless auctions, even today, the price increase is decided in court..
In fact, commercial interest and competition are what determine price.
Moreover, with electronic procedures there are strong guarantees to avoid collusion, while the conditions in the real estate market have changed significantly.
So, the new regulation helps to decongest the courts, which under the current regime would have to intervene to change the price. Therefore, an objective criterion is introduced that practically leads, without unnecessary procedures, to the same result that the court decision would lead to.
However, The official opposition specifically accuses us of facilitating the enforcement process is reminiscent of a patrician.
On the issue of assignment to the bailiff to draw up a certificate, to prevent the child from communicating with the parent, listening to the reservations, I requested the replacement in the relevant article of the term "certifies" with the term "finds".
The proposal of the Official Opposition was similar, but also representatives of other parties.
Mr.. The Minister has already agreed to reconsider the relevant wording. Nevertheless, from the committee step still, I noted that the concern is unjustified anyway since: or certifies, or the bailiff finds the obstruction, its illegality will eventually be judged again by the court.
However, because even harsher criticisms were heard on this issue, let us also remember the article 931 par. 2 providing for the preparation of a report by the bailiff for any criminal offense committed in the process of enforcement, that is, there the bailiff also assesses the crime.
Quaintly, The official opposition also expressed its opposition to an issue beyond matter, in the restriction of the witness procedure in the civil courts brought by law 4335/2015, that is, the law of SYRIZA. Mr.. Lappas spoke harshly against him, He even said that he was blackmailed by the institutions to the government and that the then Minister of Justice could not change a single "and", not a single party in the text and that it has failed and needs to change.
He was critical of the same issue, but not as self-critical, Mrs.. Jakri and even more carefully the Head of the Department Mr.. Xanthopoulos.
However, other opposition parties appeared to be forming. We therefore expect to hear the position of the official opposition expressis verbis and not half-heartedly, as well as why SYRIZA did not change the relevant regulations 3,5 years, καθόσον ίσχυε η εφαρμογή κατά τη διάρκεια της θητείας του συγκεκριμένου νόμου ή έστω δεν δεσμεύτηκε να το πράξει.
We probably wouldn't do that either.
In the end, all we did was tax it.
You are being cut, Nevertheless, today, Ladies and gentlemen of the official opposition in the interests of the judiciary, αλλά η στραγγαλιστική «φόρο» και «εισφορο-επιδρομή» που κάνατε στη θητεία σας στους «επαγγελματίες της γραβάτας» έχει μείνει μνημειώδης.
Returning to the draft law, to extend the deadlines in the Tactics, I think the attitude of the opposition was mixed.
Others wrote, others said it did not help, others said it would burden the process over time. I think what is happening is that it is in the right direction, the setting is correct, which facilitates the parties and the process as a whole.
Concerning the provisions restoring legal remedies and generally extending the procedural and substantive rights of the parties, it goes without saying that one cannot be the opposite.
The fact though, that there are several such provisions - the number of such articles in the bill is in double digits- responds best to the accusation that the bill allegedly sacrifices guarantees of a fair trial on the altar of acceleration.
The truth is that acceleration is sought with focused interventions that do not affect the quality and guarantees of the process, while restoring rights that had been revoked, where deemed necessary. That is why I think it is rightly characterized as a balanced piece of legislation.
However, there are numerous digital interventions that are included in the provisions of the draft law and will be made available to the professionals of justice., making their work easier and more efficient.
I think that they, too, rightly received the approval of the opposition parties, except for the Greek Solution that said yes to digitization, but not in the excessive.
In general, "excessive" harms all things.
End, the bona fide judge will find many other practical solutions in the bill as it is:
- the possibility of obtaining affidavits from lawyers,
- the redefinition of one's own home for reasons of force majeure,
- set-off of court costs when there is a reasonable doubt about the outcome of the trial,
- the addition of psychologists to the outstanding witnesses,
- the limitation of cases where insignificant errors are not taken into account for insignificant errors,
- jurisdiction over insurance and the court hearing the main case,
- the abolition of unrealistic deadlines in precautionary measures,
- the suspension of the trial of the court seised second in arbitration cases in order to allow the court seised first to judge the validity of this agreement.
But also other settings:
- for the Supreme Judicial Councils,
- for court clerks,
- for the Cadastral Office of Rhodes and
- to extend internships to practicing lawyers in both unpaid and paid mortgages.
Settings, facing existing problems in the field of justice.
So there are enough reasons, ladies and gentlemen, so that the parties can overcome any of their reservations and vote in favor of the entire draft law, because it is useless and hypocritical on the one hand to record and agree on the chronic diseases of justice and on the other hand not to have the courage to support tried and successful solutions.
Mr. Minister, Mr. Undersecretary, Thank you very much you and your team for the excellent cooperation and you, ladies and gentlemen, for your quality dialogue and attention