Συμβούλιο της Ευρώπης – Απόφαση Επιτροπής Υπουργών: Επίβλεψη εκτέλεσης αποφάσεων ΕΔΔΑ Μακαρατζής κτλ. κατά Ελλάδας (βία αστυνομικών – λιμενικών)

ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ

ΑΝΑΠΛΗΡΩΤΕΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΩΝ

Αποφάσεις

CM/Del/Δεκ(2018)1331/H46-13

6 Δεκεμβρίου 2018

1331η συνεδρίαση, 4-6 Δεκεμβρίου 2018 (ΑΔ)

H46-12 Ομάδα αποφάσεων Μακαρατζής κ.λπ. κατά Ελλάδας
(Προσφυγές υπ’ αριθ. 50385/99 κτλ.)

Επίβλεψη της εκτέλεσης των αποφάσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου

Αποφάσεις

Οι Αναπληρωτές

1. υπενθυμίζοντας ότι αυτές οι υποθέσεις αφορούν τη χρήση δυνητικά θανατηφόρας βίας και κακομεταχείρισης από όργανα επιβολής του νόμου καθώς και την έλλειψη αποτελεσματικών ερευνών ικανών να οδηγήσουν σε επαρκείς πειθαρχικές και ποινικές κυρώσεις·

Όσον αφορά τα ατομικά μέτρα

2. υπενθυμίζουν με λύπη ότι, λόγω των ισχυόντων κανόνων παραγραφής, δεν είναι δυνατή η επανεξέταση υπερβολικά επιεικών καταδικαστικών αποφάσεων ή αναποτελεσματικών ποινικών ανακρίσεων (ειδικότερα της πρόσφατης υπόθεσης Andersen).

3. εκφράζουν επίσης τη λύπη τους για το γεγονός ότι στην υπόθεση Zontul, λόγω της τότε ισχύουσας ελληνικής νομοθεσίας, η επανεξέταση της ποινικής καταδίκης των λιμενικών υπεύθυνων για προσβολή της σεξουαλικής αξιοπρέπειας δεν θα επέτρεπε να ληφθεί υπόψη η διαπίστωση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου ότι τα γεγονότα αποτελούσαν βασανιστήρια κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 3 της Σύμβασης, καθώς στην έννοια των βασανιστηρίων στην ελληνική νομοθεσία δεν περιλαμβάνονταν τα πραγματικά περιστατικά της υπόθεσης· σημείωσαν ωστόσο με ικανοποίηση την απόφαση του Συνήγορου του Πολίτη να επαναλάβει τις πειθαρχικές έρευνες σχετικά με τις συνέπειες των εν λόγω πράξεων·

4. εξέφρασαν τη λύπη τους για το γεγονός ότι σε όλες τις περιπτώσεις – εκτός από εκείνες των Σιδηρόπουλου – Παπακώστα και Andersen – η επανάληψη των πειθαρχικών ερευνών δεν ήταν δυνατή λόγω του ότι τα αδικήματα είχαν παραγραφεί·

5. κάλεσαν τις αρχές να ενημερώσουν την Επιτροπή μέχρι την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 για την επανεξέταση των πειθαρχικών ερευνών σχετικά με τις υποθέσεις Σιδηρόπουλου – Παπακώστα και Andersen·

6. επισημαίνοντας επίσης την ιδιαίτερη πολυπλοκότητα του ζητήματος παραγραφής στην υπόθεση Zontul, κάλεσαν τις αρχές να υποβάλουν στην Επιτροπή έως την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 τα πλήρη πορίσματα του Λιμενικού Σώματος σχετικά με την επανάληψη της πειθαρχικής διαδικασίας, ιδίως όσον αφορά την παραμονή στην υπηρεσία των υπευθύνων·

7. χαιρέτισαν την πρόθεση των αρχών να ζητήσουν από τους επικεφαλής των υπηρεσιών που εμπλέκονται σε βασανιστήρια και άλλες μορφές κακομεταχείρισης να ζητήσουν γραπτή συγγνώμη από τους προσφεύγοντες· κάλεσαν τις αρχές να ενημερώσουν την Επιτροπή μέχρι την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 για οποιαδήποτε περαιτέρω εξέλιξη·

Όσον αφορά τα γενικά μέτρα

8. κάλεσαν τις αρχές να εντείνουν τις συνεχιζόμενες προσπάθειές τους για την εξάλειψη όλων των μορφών κακομεταχείρισης από τα όργανα επιβολής του νόμου, λαμβάνοντας δεόντως υπόψη τις συστάσεις της CPT και τις κάλεσαν να παράσχουν στην Επιτροπή συγκεκριμένες και λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα ληφθέντα ή προβλεπόμενα μέτρα σε απάντηση στις αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου στις υποθέσεις αυτές·

9. όσον αφορά την αποτελεσματικότητα των ερευνών, κάλεσαν τις αρχές να υποβάλουν έως την 1η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019 λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα ακόλουθα θέματα:

α) την αναστολή της παραγραφής για αξιόποινες πράξεις που σχετίζονται με παραβάσεις παρόμοιες με εκείνες στις υπό κρίση υποθέσεις·

β) τη γενική δυνατότητα επανέναρξης πειθαρχικών ερευνών σε περιπτώσεις όπου έχει ήδη αποφασισθεί ποινική ή πειθαρχική ευθύνη, λαμβανομένης υπόψη της αρχής ne bis in idem που κατοχυρώνεται στον νόμο 4443/2016·

γ) την αποτελεσματικότητα του νέου μηχανισμού καταγγελίας (Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη), ιδίως υπό το πρίσμα των αποτελεσμάτων των ερευνών επί των καταγγελιών που υποβλήθηκαν μετά την έναρξη λειτουργίας του μηχανισμού στις 9 Ιουνίου 2017·

δ) τον αντίκτυπο της νέας ενισχυμένης νομοθετικής προστασίας κατά του ρατσιστικού εγκλήματος και τα ενδεχόμενα νέα μέτρα που προβλέπονται για τη διασφάλιση της διερεύνησης πιθανών ρατσιστικών κινήτρων όταν παρουσιάζεται κακομεταχείριση στο πλαίσιο της επιβολής του νόμου·

ε) το κατά πόσον οι αποφάσεις για την περάτωση ποινικών ανακρίσεων λόγω παραγραφής μπορούν να υποβληθούν σε δικαστική ή άλλη ανεξάρτητη επανεξέταση·

στ) τα μέτρα που ελήφθησαν ή σχεδιάστηκαν στο πλαίσιο της τρέχουσας αναθεώρησης του Ποινικού Κώδικα, προκειμένου να ευθυγραμμιστεί πλήρως η διεξαγωγή των ποινικών ανακρίσεων σε περιπτώσεις κακομεταχείρισης και οι σχετικές κυρώσεις με τις απαιτήσεις της νομολογίας του Δικαστηρίου, ιδίως όσον αφορά τον ορισμό των βασανιστηρίων και τις δυνατότητες μετατροπής ποινών φυλάκισης που επιβάλλονται για βασανιστήρια και άλλες μορφές κακομεταχείρισης σε ποινές μη στερητικές της ελευθερίας.

[Μετάφραση στα ελληνικά από το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι (ΕΠΣΕ) από το αγγλικό πρωτότυπο διαθέσιμο εδώ

Advertisements

Council of Europe – Commitee of Ministers’ Decision: Makaratzis group v. Greece

COECM

1331st meeting, 4-6 December 2018 (DH)

 

H46-13 Makaratzis group v. Greece (Application No. 50385/99)

Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments

Reference document

CM/Notes/1331/H46-13

 

Decisions

The Deputies

  1. recalling that these cases concern the use of potentially lethal force and ill-treatment by law enforcement agents as well as the lack of effective investigations capable of leading to adequate disciplinary and criminal sanctions;

As regards individual measures

  1. recalled with regret that as a result of the prescription rules in force the reopening of excessively lenient convictions or of ineffective criminal investigations (notably the recent Andersen case) is not possible;
  2. expressed also regret that in the Zontul case, due to the state of Greek law at the time, a reopening of the criminal conviction of the responsible coast guard for infringement of sexual dignity would not allow to take into account the European Court’s finding that the facts constituted torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, as the notion of torture in Greek law did not extend to the facts of the case; noted, however, with satisfaction the Ombudsman’s decision to reopen the disciplinary investigations into the consequences of the acts at issue;
  3. expressed regret that in all the cases – apart from Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen – the reopening of the disciplinary investigations was not possible due to the fact that the offences were subject to prescription;
  4. invited the authorities to inform the Committee by 1 September 2019 about the reopened disciplinary investigations concerning the Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen cases;
  5. noting also the particular complexity of the prescription question in the Zontul case, invited the authorities to provide the Committee by 1 September 2019  with the full conclusions of the Hellenic Coast Guard concerning the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings, notably as regards the continued employment of those responsible;
  6. welcomed the authorities’ intention to request the heads of the services involved in torture and other forms of ill-treatment to issue written apologies to the applicants; invited the authorities to inform the Committee by 1 September 2019 of any further development;

As regards general measures

  1. called upon the authorities to intensify their ongoing efforts to eradicate all forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, taking due account of the CPT’s recommendations, and invited them to provide the Committee with concrete and detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged in response to the European Court’s judgments in these cases;
  1. invited, as regards the effectiveness of investigations, the authorities to provide by 1 September 2019 detailed information on the following issues:
  2. a) the suspension of the limitation period for offences related to violations similar to those in the present cases;
  3. b) the overall possibility to reopen disciplinary investigations in cases where criminal or disciplinary liability has already been decided, taking into account the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Law 4443/2016;
  4. c) the effectiveness of the new complaint Mechanism (the Ombudsman), notably in the light of the outcome of the investigations into the complaints submitted since the Mechanism started to function on 9 June 2017;
  5. d) the impact of the new reinforced legislative protection against racist crime and possible new measures envisaged to ensure the investigation of possible racist motives when ill-treatment occurs in the context of law enforcement;
  6. e) the extent to which decisions to close criminal investigations on the basis of prescription can be subjected to judicial or other independent review;
  7. f) the measures taken or envisaged in the context of the ongoing revision of the Criminal Code in order to fully align the conduct of criminal investigations into ill-treatment and the relevant sanctions with the requirements of the Court’s case-law, in particular as regards the definition of torture and the possibilities to convert terms of imprisonment imposed for torture and other ill-treatment into non-custodial sentences.

1331st meeting, 4-6 December 2018 (DH)

Human rights

 

H46-13 Makaratzis group v. Greece (Application No. 50385/99)

Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments

Reference document

CM/Del/Dec(2017)1302/H46-11

 

Application Case Judgment of Final on Indicator for the classification
50385/99 MAKARATZIS 20/12/2004 Grand Chamber Complex problem
15250/02 BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS 13/12/2005 13/03/2006
25771/03 ALSAYED ALLAHAM 18/01/2007 23/05/2007
17060/03 ZELILOF 24/05/2007 24/08/2007
27850/03 KARAGIANNOPOULOS 21/06/2007 21/09/2007
21449/04 CELNIKU 05/07/2007 05/10/2007
44803/04 PETROPOULOU-TSAKIRIS 06/12/2007 06/03/2008
43326/05 LEONIDIS 08/01/2009 05/06/2009
2945/07 GALOTSKIN 14/01/2010 14/04/2010
2954/07 STEFANOU 22/04/2010 04/10/2010
12294/07 ZONTUL 17/01/2012 17/04/2012
33349/10 SIDIROPOULOS AND PAPAKOSTAS 25/01/2018 25/04/2018
42660/11 ANDERSEN 26/04/2018 26/07/2018

Case description

These cases concern the use of potentially lethal force by the police in the absence of an adequate legislative and administrative framework governing the use of firearms (violation of positive obligation pursuant to Article 2 to protect life in the cases Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos and Leonidis); ill-treatment by police (violation of Article 3 in the cases of Bekos and Koutropoulos, Alsayed Allaham, Petropoulou-Tsakyri, Zelilof, Galotskin and Stefanou); ill-treatment by coastguards amounting to torture (violation of Article 3 in the case of Zontul); absence of effective administrative and criminal investigations and inadequate criminal proceedings and penalties (procedural violations of Article 2 in the cases of Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos and of Article 3 in the cases of Bekos-Koutropoulos, Petropoulou-Tsakiris, Zelilof, Galotskin, Zontul, Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen); failure to investigate whether racist motives on the part of the police may have played a role in some cases (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 3 in the cases of Bekos-Koutropoulos and Petropoulou-Tsakiris).

The Galotskin, Stefanou and Sidiropoulos and Papakostas cases also concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6 § 1); in the latter a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 was also found[1].

Status of execution

Individual measures

As regards all cases apart from Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen

At the 1157th meeting (December 2012) (DH), the authorities indicated that it was not possible under domestic law to reopen criminal proceedings on the sole basis of the deficiencies identified by the Court in the cases of the group where the perpetrators had been convicted or acquitted. As regards the cases where criminal charges had not been brought, these would be re-examined. Following re-examination of those cases it was found that the offences had become time-barred. As for disciplinary proceedings, the authorities indicated at that time that their reopening following a judgment by the European Court could be requested by the executive committee of “the Office for addressing arbitrary incidents” (“the Office”), established by Law No. 3938/2011, in respect of judgments of the Court delivered after 31 March 2011 (that date on which this law entered into force). Also, the statutory limitation period for disciplinary offences would not run between the termination of the disciplinary proceedings and the delivery of the Court’s judgment to the Office. In a communication received on 8 July 2015, the Greek authorities informed the Committee that the reopening of the administrative investigation in Zontul in the light of the Court’s findings would be considered as soon as the committee established by Law 3938/2011 became operational.

On 27 September 2017, the Greek authorities informed the Committee that Law 4443/2016 (in force as from 6 December 2016) had replaced the Office with the national mechanism for the investigation of incidents of abuse by law enforcement agents and by employees of state penitentiary establishments (Mechanism for the Investigation of Arbitrary Behaviour – “the Mechanism”), which was integrated into the Ombudsman’s Office. Furthermore, the authorities informed the Committee that the Zontul judgment was transmitted to the Mechanism on 27 July 2017, and that on 11 August 2017 the Mechanism requested the reopening of the administrative investigation in this case in the light of the European Court’s findings.

At its 1302nd meeting (December 2017) (DH), the Committee invited the Greek authorities to provide information on further developments and on the outcome of the reopened procedure. It also requested information regarding the examination by the Mechanism of the possibility of reopening administrative proceedings in the other cases of the group concerning ill-treatment by law enforcement agents.

In their communication of 8 October 2018, the Greek authorities informed the Committee that as regards Zontul, the Mechanism initially decided that there was no question of violation of the ne bis in idem principle since the offences to be investigated in the reopened proceedings were different from those investigated initially, and requested the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the European Court’s findings. The authorities added that the disciplinary proceedings were reopened by the Hellenic Coast Guard and concluded by a report issued on 13 April 2018. Subsequently, the Mechanism issued its conclusions concurring with the Hellenic Coast Guard that, although the disciplinary offences investigated were different from those investigated initially, they had become time-barred because they had not been classified by domestic courts as criminal offences subject to longer statutory limitations.

According to the Mechanism, under Article 56 § 6 of Law 4443/2016 the suspension of the offences’ prescription between the termination of disciplinary proceedings and the delivery of the Court’s judgment to the Mechanism is possible only for those cases in which the prescription period had not expired by the date on which the Mechanism became operational (9 June 2017). As regards the other cases of the group, the Mechanism held that reopening of disciplinary proceedings was not possible because the offences had become prescribed long before the Mechanism became operational.

For all of these cases, the Mechanism proposed as the only possible individual measures a written apology from the heads of the services concerned to each of the victims of the impugned acts. In this way, moral satisfaction could be provided to these persons; at the same time there would be a commitment on the part of the relevant services that future disciplinary proceedings will be carried out in conformity with the Court’s case law. The Government Agent indicated that he agrees with this proposal and that he would pursue it before the services concerned.

As regards the cases of Sidiropoulos and Papakostas and Andersen

The above judgments became final on 24 April 2018 (Sidiropoulos and Papakostas) and on 26 July 2018 (Andersen). On 30 July 2018 the judgments were transmitted by the Government Agent to the Mechanism to examine the possibility of reopening administrative investigations, and on 20 August 2018 to the competent judicial authorities to examine the possibility of reopening criminal investigations. As regards Andersen, the First Instance Court Prosecutor of Thessaloniki examined the file and decided in September 2018 that the reopening of the case was not possible due to the fact that the offences were subject to prescription.

General measures

As regards administrative investigations of complaints against law enforcement agents

At its 1157th meeting (December 2012) (DH), the Committee of Ministers welcomed the repeal of Law No. 29/1943 on the use of firearms, which had been criticised by the European Court, noted that the new national legislation introduced a modern and comprehensive legislative framework for the use of firearms by the police and decided to close the supervision of the general measures taken by Greece to prevent similar violations of Article 2.

Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers welcomed the establishment by Law No. 3938/2011 of the three-member executive committee to head the aforementioned Office.

According to information provided by the authorities in September 2017, the Office did not become operational. Instead, as mentioned above, the Mechanism was established by Law No. 4443/2016, as part of the Ombudsman’s Office. The Mechanism is mandated to collect, record, assess and transmit to the competent bodies complaints about the actions of law enforcement agents and employees of detention establishments regarding: a) torture and other violations to human dignity within the meaning of Article 137A of the Criminal Code; b) illegal, intentional attacks against life, health, physical integrity, personal or sexual freedom; c) illegal use of firearms; or d) illegal behaviour for which there is evidence of racist motivation or discriminatory treatment on the grounds of colour, race, national or ethnic origin, descent, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. More specifically, the Ombudsman, acting as the Mechanism, evaluates all submitted complaints which fall within his specific competence and decides either to investigate them himself or to refer them to the competent disciplinary body.

If the Ombudsman decides to investigate the complaint himself, the competent disciplinary body is not prevented from continuing its investigation but is obliged to suspend its decision on the case pending receipt of the Ombudsman’s findings. If the Ombudsman decides to refer the case to the competent disciplinary body, the latter is obliged to investigate it as a priority, and inform the Ombudsman of the outcome. The Ombudsman evaluates the findings of the disciplinary proceedings and may send the case back to the disciplinary body for further investigation if specific shortcomings are identified. The Ombudsman’s findings are not legally binding, but the disciplinary body concerned is obliged to provide detailed reasoning in case of any divergence from them.

The Ombudsman is also empowered to request the reopening of an administrative investigation in cases where the European Court has found the initial investigation ineffective. When the Ombudsman decides to reopen the case, based on the findings of the European Court, he communicates this decision to the disciplinary body concerned.

During the investigation, the Ombudsman may request public services to provide any information, documents or other evidence related to the case under investigation, unless they have been classified as secret on grounds of national defence, state security or the country’s international relations. Furthermore, the Ombudsman may take statements from witnesses, conduct on-site investigations and order expert reports.

According to the authorities’ communication of 8 October 2018, the Ombudsman indicated in his annual report submitted to Parliament on 26 March 2018 that, since 6 June 2017, 117 complaints had been submitted to the Mechanism. 11 complaints were submitted by individuals and 112 by state services responsible for investigating disciplinary offences. The Mechanism found that four complaints were not within the scope of the Ombudsman’s competence, whilst the remaining complaints were followed up. In seven cases the investigations were concluded by the respective services and their reports were under examination by the Ombudsman. In two cases the Ombudsman held that the investigations were insufficient and referred them back to the competent services. In four cases investigations were being carried out by the Ombudsman himself.

As regards the offences investigated, 15 concerned torture, 15 the use of firearms, 14 concerned affronts to sexual dignity, 53 concerned attacks against life or physical integrity and, lastly, 11 concerned racially motivated offences. According to information provided by the police, between June 2017 and March 2018 223 complaints were transmitted to the Ombudsman. 31 of these were found not to be within the scope of the Ombudsman’s competence. Administrative inquiries were ordered in 136 cases. Of these, 71 were completed and the relevant conclusions transmitted to the Ombudsman. In 17 cases the police were ordered to carry out further investigations; in nine of them, further investigations were carried out and they were referred back to the Ombudsman. In order to enhance co-operation between the police and the Ombudsman, a circular was issued by the head of the Greek police in June 2017.

As regards other general measures aiming at combatting ill-treatment by law enforcement officers and racially motivated crimes

At its 1302nd meeting (December 2017) (DH), the Committee noted that a law-making committee had been established, tasked with examining whether the definition of torture in Greek law is compatible with the definition in Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture. It also noted that the authorities had undertaken to examine the matter of conversion of custodial sentences imposed for torture with a view to ensuring that perpetrators of torture or other ill-treatment are proportionately and effectively punished. Lastly, the Committee invited the authorities to provide information about further relevant developments.

On 8 October 2018 the authorities informed the Committee that the above committee had concluded its work and submitted a draft criminal code to the Ministry of Justice which would be soon sent to Parliament for adoption. The authorities noted that the review of the definition of torture in the Criminal Code is beyond the necessary measures for the execution of the present judgments, because the Court did not indicate that the violations found were linked to the criminal law provisions criminalising torture or affront to life and bodily harm. According to the authorities, it was rather the lenient application by domestic courts of these provisions that led to procedural violations of Article 3.

The Greek Helsinki Monitor in its communication submitted in September 2018 mentioned notably that since June 2017 it had submitted to the Ombudsman 18 complaints of ill-treatment (including of migrants and Roma[2]) by law enforcement agents, but had not received any information on the progress of these cases.

Lastly, it is noted that as of October 2018 five new cases concerning ill-treatment by law enforcement agents have been communicated to the Greek Government.

Analysis by the Secretariat

As regards individual measures

Criminal proceedings

It is recalled that in relation to 10 cases of the group, criminal charges were brought against the law enforcement agents involved, who were either acquitted or sentenced. In relation to three cases (Zelilof, Petropoulou-Tsakiris and Andersen), where criminal proceedings had not been brought, the files were re-examined and it was found that the offences had become time-barred.

Administrative proceedings

As regards the Zontul case, the reopening of the criminal investigations into torture (as the facts were characterised by the Court) instead of mere infringement of sexual dignity (as the events were characterised in the domestic proceedings) is claimed by the authorities to be objectively impossible since the perpetrator had already been convicted at the time of the Court’s judgment for the acts at issue. In the circumstances of the case, this objection – based on the principles of legal certainty and ne bis in idem – appears justified as no new facts or other evidence emerged in the procedure before the European Court. The violations were be solely related to the legal characterisation of these acts and to shortcomings in the investigation procedure.

In view of this situation, and of the importance of effectively preventing impunity in cases of torture, the possibility of disciplinary proceedings has been explored.

It is recalled that this has been considered, in the special circumstances of the present case, to be another avenue of redress to give a measure of effect to the Court’s findings. It is further recalled that the established case law provides that, when an agent of the State is accused of crimes that violate Article 3, criminal proceedings and sentencing must not be time-barred.[3] It is also recalled that where state agents have been charged with offences involving ill‑treatment, they should be suspended from duty while being investigated or tried, and should be dismissed if convicted.[4]

It is thus to be welcomed that the disciplinary investigations have continued. However, the conduct of these proceedings raises questions as to how the conclusions of the Court were taken into account both as regards the possibility of reopening the administrative investigations and the application of the relevant prescription rules when determining disciplinary liability.

As mentioned earlier the Mechanism (Ombudsman) requested the Hellenic Coast Guard to reopen the disciplinary proceedings, considering that there was no question of infringement of the ne bis in idem principle, since the new investigation would presumably focus on the offence of torture and not on the offences actually investigated in the context of the criminal proceedings. However, following the conclusion of the reopened investigation by the Hellenic Coast Guard, the Ombudsman concluded that the offences established were indeed time-barred because of the application of the general prescription period of five years that applies to the offence of infringement of sexual dignity. This change of position as to the scope of the disciplinary proceedings requires further explanation.

Even assuming that the disciplinary proceedings could only relate to the offence of infringement of sexual dignity, questions remain as to the application of prescription periods in the context of disciplinary action.

The Greek authorities have previously informed the Committee (see documents CM/Inf/DH(2012)40,
DH-DD(2015)757 and DH-DD(2018)971) that: a) for disciplinary offences the limitation period would not run during criminal proceedings; and b) according to Article 1 § 6 of Law No. 3938/2011, the limitation period for disciplinary offences giving rise to violations found by the Court would not run between the termination of disciplinary proceedings by the Hellenic Coast Guard (August 2001, § 16 Zontul) and the delivery of the Court’s judgment to the Office. However, the Office never became operational and was replaced only in 2017 by the Mechanism. The provision on the suspension of prescription remained unchanged. From the information provided, it appears that the Mechanism did not take into account the suspension of prescription in accordance with Article 1 § 6 of Law 3938/11. In view of the above, clarifications are necessary on how the statutory prescription periods for disciplinary offences were calculated and implemented by the Ombudsman.

It would be also useful to the Committee for the authorities to provide the full text of the conclusions issued by the Hellenic Coast Guard in Zontul. In this way, the Committee could acquire a detailed and comprehensive overview of these proceedings concerning torture.

As regards the Mechanism’s proposal that the heads of the services involved issue written apologies to the victims, it should be welcomed. The Committee might wish to encourage the authorities to consider it as a measure of moral compensation, and invite the authorities to provide more information on the effect given to this proposal.

General measures

As regards the problem of ill-treatment of persons in detention, it is noted that this issue has been the subject of several CPT reports. Its latest report on Greece (CPT/Inf (2017)25 §§ 62-66) states, inter alia, that as regards the treatment of criminal suspects detained by law enforcement officials, and despite overwhelming indications to the contrary, the authorities have to date consistently refused to consider that ill-treatment is a serious problem there, and have not taken the required action to implement the CPT’s recommendations and to combat this phenomenon effectively.

The CPT has notably underlined that in order to back up any message of zero tolerance and to reinforce training, effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment must be undertaken to demonstrate that criminal acts by the police will be punished, and to counter the current culture of impunity that pervades parts of the police force.

In view of the above, and of the fact that as of October 2018 five new applications against Greece lodged between 2013 and 2016 involving, inter alia, alleged violations of Article 3 due to ill-treatment in law enforcement have been communicated to the government, the Committee might visit to invite the authorities to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the conclusions of the Court in the present group of cases, taking into account the CPT’s recommendations.

Administrative investigations of complaints against law enforcement agents concerning violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention 

It is recalled that the supervision of the execution of the judgments of this group focuses on the implementation of measures taken to prevent ill-treatment by law enforcement officers and to guarantee proper and effective investigations into acts giving rise to a risk to life or of ill-treatment by law enforcement officers.

It appears that a key element in the execution of the Court’s judgments is the effective operation of the Ombudsman as the Mechanism. 15 of the complaints referred to by the authorities, submitted to the Ombudsman after the judgments in the present group, led to administrative investigations for torture, whilst 53 complaints concerned attacks against life or bodily harm. However, no information was provided about the scope and effectiveness of the investigations undertaken or about their outcome as regards disciplinary or criminal responsibility of the alleged perpetrators. The authorities should provide the Committee with more information in these and other relevant respects, to permit an evaluation of the effectiveness and independence of the investigations carried under the supervision of the Mechanism.

As regards reopening of administrative investigations

The special problems raised in the Zontul case require additional attention. Given that, according to the above law, reopening of disciplinary proceedings, to the extent they impose sanctions, should not infringe the ne bis in idem principle, and given the problems identified above in this respect, as well as regards the application of prescription periods, it would be useful for the Committee to receive information about the implementation of the legislation by the Ombudsman in the cases at issue in this group and possibly others so that conclusions can be drawn about how Law 4443/2016 might be applied in possible future cases. More specifically, information would be useful about: a) the suspension of statutory limitation periods for the offences that gave rise to the violations found by the Court; and b) in view of the ne bis in idem principle, the overall possibility to reopen disciplinary investigations in cases where criminal or disciplinary liability has already been decided upon.

Some of the present cases also concern the authorities’ failure to investigate whether racist motives on the part of the police may have played a role in the applicants’ ill-treatment. Given that the authorities have not provided updated information on the impact of measures taken or measures envisaged to prevent similar violations, the Committee might wish to call on the authorities to do so.

Adequacy of criminal proceedings and sanctioning by domestic courts

It is recalled that in a number of the present judgments the Court’s findings of procedural violations of Article 3 stemmed from inadequacies in criminal proceedings, concerning notably: inadequate access for the applicant as a civil party to the criminal proceedings (Zontul § 111); inadequate witness-related proceedings indicating a lack of effort by the competent authorities to discover what really happened (Alsayed Allaham § 28-29, Galotskin § 49, Zelilof § 62); and the handling (and closing) of the relevant complaints by the prosecutor (Andersen §65).[5] In addition, procedural violations of Article 3 in some of these cases stemmed, inter alia, from the leniency and disproportionate sentences imposed by domestic courts on law enforcement agents, even in cases where (aggravated) torture occurred (Zontul §§ 106-108, Sidiropoulos and Papakostas §§ 90-96). In view of this, the Committee might wish to call on the authorities to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to redress these shortcomings and to fully align criminal law and practice with the Court’s case law.

Definition of torture in the Criminal Code

This issue was raised by the Court in Zontul (§§ 87-93), in which it noted that the court of appeal had not characterised the applicant’s rape by truncheon as torture because Article 137A § 2 of the Criminal Code provides that, in order for an act to be characterised as torture, the infliction of severe pain must be “planned”. The Court found that under its established case law a detainee’s rape by a state agent constitutes torture under the Convention.

The information provided concerning the review of the definition of torture in the Criminal Code in order to align it with Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture is positive, as the requirements of this Article are the same as those under the Convention. However, no detailed information was provided about the outcome of this review, notably about when the authorities intend to propose the amendments to the Criminal Code needed to bring it into line with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee might wish to invite the authorities to provide more information on the progress of the present legislative work.

Financing assured: YES

[1] The issues of excessively lengthy criminal proceedings and effective remedies were examined in the Michelioudakis / Diamantides No.2 group of cases,  closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)231.

[2] The term “Roma and Travellers” is used at the Council of Europe to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term “Gens du voyage”, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. The present is an explanatory footnote, not a definition of Roma and/or Travellers.

[3] See, inter alia, Yeter v. Turkey, judgment of 13 January 2017 §70, Mocanu v. Romania, GC judgment. of 17 September 2014, §326.

[4] See, inter alia, Gäfgen v. Germany, GC judgment of 1 June 2010 §125.

[5] See also CPT report on Greece of 1 March 2016 (CPT/Inf (2016) 4 §24) stating that “ the current system is characterised by systemic failings by the police and judicial authorities to conduct prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations, aimed at bringing the perpetrators of ill-treatment to justice”.

European Implementation Network civil society briefing focuses on Georgia, Greece and the Russian Federation

https://racistcrimeswatch.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/c5813-1543239141801.png?w=307&h=307

EIN civil society briefing focuses on Georgia, Greece and the Russian Federation

On 23 November 2018, EIN held its quarterly civil society briefing, ahead of the 1331st CM-DH meeting.

Presentations were given on the following cases:

1- Alekseyev v Russia (Application No 4916/07) and Bayev v Russia (Application No 67667/09) – Repeated bans on the holding of LGTBI marches and pickets; fines imposed for displaying banners considered to promote homosexuality among minors (against laws prohibiting such “propaganda”).

2- Makaratzis v Greece (Application No 50385/99) – Ill-treatment by coastguards and other state agents and a lack of effective investigations.

3- Merabishvili v Georgia (Application 72508/13) – Failure by the domestic courts to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify continuation of detention on remand; continued detention on remand with the predominant purpose of obtaining information from the applicant about third persons.

4- Bekir Ousta v Greece (Application 35151/05) – Refusal of domestic courts to register the applicants’ associations.

 

 Participants in the briefing. Photo: EIN

Participants in the briefing. Photo: EIN

 

Over 35 participants attended the briefing, including participants from the Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe, the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, and other CoE staff members. The main recommendations from the briefing are available here.

1- Alekseyev v Russian Federation (Application No 4916/07) and Bayev v Russia (Application No 67667/09)

The Alekseyev v. Russia case addresses repeated bans on demonstrations promoting tolerance and respect for the human rights of LGBTI persons in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge those bans. The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) found violations of Convention Articles 11 (right to freedom of assembly), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 11.

 

 Nigel Warner from ILGA Europe reporting about the Alekseyev and Bayev v RF cases. Photo: EIN
Nigel Warner from ILGA Europe reporting about the Alekseyev and Bayev v RF cases. Photo: EIN

 

The Bayev v. Russia case addresses violations of the right to freedom of expression and discrimination on account of fines imposed on the applicants for displaying banners considered to promote homosexuality among minors. The banners were held by the Russian courts to be against the regional laws prohibiting such “propaganda”, adopted in several regions since 2006, and followed by a nation-wide law of 2013 similar to that effect (violations of Article 10 and of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10).

The main argument advanced by the RF in support of these laws – that they are necessary to protect minors from information about homosexuality – was dismissed by the ECtHR as “lacking any evidentiary basis”.

The execution of judgments process in the Alekseyev case has now been proceeding for 7 ½ years. Over that time, in numerous Decisions, the CM has repeatedly expressed concern that the competent authorities have refused the majority of requests to hold public events similar to those in the Alekseyev judgment. It has also made numerous warnings against the introduction of regional and federal laws prohibiting so-called “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” (the “propaganda” laws). These were ignored, and despite assurances by the Russian government to the contrary, these laws have been used on many occasions to refuse authorisation of public events in support of the rights of LGBTI persons. As far as the Bayev case is concerned, the judgment is relatively recent (June 2017).

In his presentation, Nigel Warner focused on the main recommendations listed in the Rule 9.2 communication submitted on those cases by Coming Out, a St Petersburg-based NGO, and ILGA Europe, in October 2018. According to Mr Warner, the latest Action Plan of the Russian Federation on those cases offers no evidence of any improvement or prospect of improvement in the situation. Furthermore, it appears to repudiate the Bayev judgment, citing a ruling of the RF Constitutional Court to the effect that the “propaganda laws” are consistent with the constitution. The “propaganda laws” continue to be used to the detriment of LGTB youth.

In view of this situation, Mr Warner therefore invited the CM to:

  • repeat its request to the Russian authorities to adopt a comprehensive action plan to ensure execution of the Alekseyev and Bayev judgments. This request should, as a minimum, include the repeal of legislation prohibiting so-called “propaganda of homosexual relations”; and
  • continue requesting information on the treatment of notifications to hold public events similar to those in the Alekseyev case.

The memo of Mr Warner is available here. His power point presentation is here. The October 2018 rule 9.2 submission form ILGA Europe and Coming Out is here. You can access the October 2018 Action Plan from the Russian Federation here.

2- Makaratzis and others group of cases v Greece (Application No 50385/99)

These cases concern ill-treatment and the unauthorized and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officials.

An update on the group was delivered by Panayote Dimitras from the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), which represents the victims in nine of thirteen cases of the group.

Mr Dimitras first underlined the positive points included in Greece’s communication dated 4/10/2018 on the Makaratzis group of cases, i.e. the beginning of the functioning of the National Mechanism for the Investigation of Arbitrary Behaviour (hereafter “the Mechanism”) within the framework of the Greek Ombudsman; and the agreement of the Government with the Mechanism recommendation that letters of apology be sent to victims of the incriminating acts.

 

 Panayote Dimitras from the Greek Helsinki Monitor on the Makaratzis group of cases. Photo: EIN

Panayote Dimitras from the Greek Helsinki Monitor on the Makaratzis group of cases. Photo: EIN

 

He further highlighted the historical decision of the Supreme Court Prosecutor, in the Chowdury and others v Greece case, to file an appeal for the cassation of a domestic court judgment for the benefit of the law, to comply with the ECtHR judgment ruling that this domestic judgment was violating the ECHR. He reminded that GHM had recommended as a fundamental remedy to execute ECtHR judgments the filing of such appeals for cassation by the Supreme Court Prosecutor in case where the violations ruled by the ECtHR resulted from domestic court judgments.

Despite these positive developments, there is still need for further progress. With regard to the work of the Ombudsman as the Mechanism for the investigation of arbitrary behaviour, in particular, Mr Dimitras regretted the lack of transparency and information on the Mechanism. GHM, which represents the victims in nine out of thirteen cases has never received any communication from the Mechanism. Most importantly, Mr Dimitras expressed his concern over the decision by the Ombudsman on almost all new cases not to carry out his own investigations but only to supervise them, and entrust the disciplinary investigations to what GHM considers as objectively partial investigation bodies. He also recalled that, in its Report on Greece of 2 November 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee evaluated the answers from Greece related to the work of the Ombudsman and the effectiveness of the Mechanism as either partially satisfactory or not satisfactory.

With regard to the Makaratzis group of cases, GHM therefore urged the CM to ask the Greek government to:

  • reopen all disciplinary investigations in the 13 cases of the Makaratzis group;
  • request the Supreme Court Prosecutor to file appeals for cassation for the benefit of law of ten domestic judgments in the Makaratzis group of cases found by the ECtHR to be in violation of the ECHR;
  • provide detailed information on the punishment of law enforcement officials for misconduct, ill-treatment or disproportionate use of force;
  • make sure that the Ombudsman investigates himself the torture or ill-treatment allegations;
  • empower the Ombudsman to impose sanctions. To do so, the law should be amended so that the Mechanism can impose penalties; concretely, a solution would be to remove the Mechanism from the Ombudsman and make it independent.
  • introduce the necessary amendments so that the definition of torture is compatible with Article 1 of UN CAT

The memo of Mr Dimitras on this group of cases is available here. The latest communication from the Greek government (September 2017) is here. You can also download the Rules 9.2. September and October submissions by the Greek Helsinki Monitor.

 

3. Merabishvili v Georgia (Application 72508/13)

 

 Georgian MP Otar Kakhidze and another Georgian MP updating on the Merabishvili case. Photo: EIN.

Georgian MP Otar Kakhidze and another Georgian MP updating on the Merabishvili case. Photo: EIN.

 

The case concerns violations suffered by the applicant, a former Prime Minister of Georgia, in the context of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in December 2012 and January 2013, for alleged embezzlement and the abuse of official authority (violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).

The presentation on this case was given by Mr Kakhidze, MP of Georgia, on the basis of the Rule 9 submission filed on this case by EHRAC in September 2018.

Mr Kakhidze noted that, following the release of Ilgar Mammadov on 13 August 2018, Mr Merabishvili was the only convicted individual against whom a violation of Article 18 of the Convention had been found who remained in detention.

In its Action Plan, the Government proposes to undertake further investigative measures taking full account of the Grand Chamber’s findings. “The only potential investigative mechanism in which Mr Merabishvili has confidence”, stated by Mr Kakhidze, “is an investigation by the Parliamentary Commission (a Temporary Investigative Commission, set up pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, Chapter 6, Articles 55-70”). Mr Kakhidze reminded that in September 2017 he requested that such a Parliamentary Commission be established to investigate Mr Merabishvili’s covert removal. Despite the fact that this request remains pending before Parliament, the Government rejected this proposal in its Action Plan (para. 33).

Mr. Kakhidze stated that without Mr. Merabishvili’s early release another investigation was not an answer to the established breach of Article 18/5. He emphasized that even the judges dissenting on violation of Article 18 agreed that Mr. Merabishvili was removed from his cell. Mr Kakhidze also reminded that an official internal inquiry of Merabishvili’s covert removal was conducted in 2014, and another formal investigation was launched in 2016 by the “reformed” prosecution service with a “newly appointed chief prosecutor”. However, the outcome which they published in 2017 clearly contradicted the ECtHR findings, both in the chamber and GC.

The Georgian Government indicated that the current domestic law prevented mobile telephone records and cell tower data from being examined as part of any further investigation, as the offence being investigated in relation to Mr Merabishvili’s removal fell within the category of less grave crimes (Action Plan, paras 34-36). It therefore proposed to amend the domestic legislation in order to permit such investigative steps to be carried out (Action Plan, para. 37). However, as Mr Kakhidze underlined, the Government failed to provide any further information as to what specific amendments it proposed to make, within what time period, whether such amendments would be retrospective (i.e. could be applied in Mr Merabishvili’s case) or whether practically this would have any effect (i.e. whether the relevant records in this case continue to exist almost 5 years after the event in question).

The Government also indicated that it has already undertaken a number of General Measures, in light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment, including:

a. Extending the period of time for storing video surveillance footage from 24 to 120 hours (Action Plan, para. 66; Order N35 amended by Order N19 (20 March 2017)); and

b. Creation of State Inspector’s Service SIS (Action Plan, paras 74-5).

Mr Kakhidze underlined that, in reality, video surveillance footage in detention facilities are stored for 30 days, but the Government tries to make the impression that “the system change” will be seen by the CM as an effective general measure. He noted that the proposed SIS was entirely irrelevant to Mr Merabishvili’s case as the crimes that it is empowered to investigate does not include any crimes related to Mr Merabishvili’s covert removal.

Mr. Kakhidze submitted that the Government intends to take the Committee of Ministers’ attention from individual measures to general legislative measures which, in his opinion, aims at delaying Mr. Merabishvili’s early release. According to him, the applicant’s continuous detention still has ulterior purposes disclosed by the Court when establishing violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5.

As previously submitted (see letter to the Committee of Ministers dated 26 January 2018), in order to effectively implement the Grand Chamber judgment in his case, the Georgian authorities should therefore:

  • Re-open the criminal proceedings against him;
  • Pending the outcome of the re-opening of the criminal proceedings, order Mr Merabishvili’s release; and
  • Ensure rigorous investigation of his covert removal by an independent body.

You can download the text of the EHRAC rule 9 submission on this case, as well as all attachments: annexe 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5. The power point presentation of Mr Kakhidze is here. The October 2018 Action Plan from the Georgian government can be downloaded here. The November 2018 Rule 9.2. submission by the Public Defender of Georgia can be downloaded here.

Other documents presented by Mr Kakhidze:

Nov 2018 letter from Georgian MPs to the CM-DH.

October statement from Georgian NGOs on the crisis of institutions in Georgia

Excerpt from the Georgian Public Defender Report 2018

4. Bekir Ousta and others group of cases v Greece (Application No 35151/05)

These cases concern violations of the right to freedom of association (Article 11) due to the refusal to register Turkish minority associations (Bekir-Ousta and Others and Emin and Others; final domestic decisions in 2006 and 2005 respectively).

 

 Photo: EIN

Photo: EIN

 

Mr Dimitras, from the Greek Helsinki Monitor, gave a summary of the developments since the last examination of the case by the CM, in December 2017. In February 2018, the Cultural Association of Turkish Women of the Prefecture of Xanthi was refused registration on similar grounds as in the present group of cases. In its 2018 communications, mentioned Mr Dimitras, Greece has refused to address the CM December 2017 concerns on these developments. More importantly, the Supreme Court Judgment dissolving the Turkish Union of Xanthi (which was the first of the three Turkish minority associations of the group of cases that filed an application for the reopening of the domestic proceedings), was considered by the Greek government as irrevocable. This means, Mr Dimitras explained, “that any similar applications for the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of Articles 29 and 30 of Law 4491/2017 by ethnic Turkish and ethnic Macedonian minority associations vindicated by the ECtHR will have no chance to become admissible by domestic courts”.

Bearing in mind these developments, Mr Dimitras called on the CM to ask the Greek government to:

  • provide explanations for the two domestic court decisions not to register the new Cultural Association of Turkish Women in the Prefecture of Xhanti, and to reject as inadmissible the Turkish Union of Xhanti’s application to have its dissolution annulled;
  • promptly introduce a legislative amendment that will change the procedure so as to introduce a simple registration of associations, along the line of (for instance) the French model;
  • request that the Supreme Court Prosecutor to file appeals for cassation against all domestic judgments that were found by the ECtHR to violate the ECHR, including the four judgments related to the Bekir -Ousta associations.

The memo of Mr Dimitras and his recommendations are available here. The Rule 9.2. submission of the Greek Helsinki Monitor published in September and October 2018 are there. The December 2017 CM decision on this case is here.

02/11/2018: Ακραίο αντιτσιγγανικό tweet Θάνου Τζήμερου

screenshot-twitter.com-2018.11.04-23-09-00

01/11/2018: Κίνδυνος παραγραφής ποινικών διώξεων Μιχαλολιάκου – Κασιδιάρη για διέγερση σε διάπραξη εγκλημάτων

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ ΠΑΡΑΤΗΡΗΤΗΡΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΣΙΝΚΙ
Τ.Θ. 60820, 15304 Γλυκά Νερά, Τηλ. 2103472259 Fax: 2106018760
email: panayotedimitras@gmail.com ιστοσελίδα: https://greekhelsinki.wordpress.com



Κύριο Βασίλειο Πέππα – Πρόεδρο Αρείου Πάγου
Κυρία Ξένη Δημητρίου-Βασιλοπούλου – Εισαγγελέα Αρείου Πάγου

Θέμα: Κίνδυνος παραγραφής ποινικών διώξεων Νίκου Μιχαλολιάκου – Ηλία Κασιδιάρη πρωτόδικα καταδικασμένων για διέγερση σε διάπραξη εγκλημάτων

1 Νοεμβρίου 2018

Κύριε Πρόεδρε
Κυρία Εισαγγελέα

Σας γνωρίζουμε πως δύο ποινικές διώξεις για διέγερση σε διάπραξη εγκλημάτων των ηγετών της Χρυσής Αυγής Νίκου Μιχαλολιάκου και Ηλία Κασιδιάρη, οι οποίοι έχουν καταδικαστεί πρωτόδικα και άσκησαν έφεση, κινδυνεύουν με παραγραφή, προφανώς με ευθύνη εισαγγελέων και δικαστών, οι οποίοι/ες πρέπει και να ελεγχθούν για την απαράδεκτη (τουλάχιστον) ολιγωρία τους. ΟΙ δικογραφίες είχαν σχηματισθεί μετά από μηνυτήριες αναφορές από το Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι (ΕΠΣΕ).

Ο Νίκος Μιχαλολιάκος καταδικάστηκε από το Δ’ Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο στις 9 Φεβρουαρίου 2018, μετά από 4 αναβολές, για διέγερση σε διάπραξη εγκλημάτων στις 3 Σεπτεμβρίου 2011. Ενώ η πράξη παραγράφεται στις 3 Σεπτεμβρίου 2019, η καθαρογραφή της απόφασης εκκρεμεί στον Πρόεδρο από 15 Φεβρουαρίου 2018, και έτσι δεν έχει προσδιορισθεί η κατ’ έφεση δίκη.

Ο Ηλίας Κασιδιάρης καταδικάστηκε από το Γ’ Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο στις 28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2017, επίσης μετά από 4 αναβολές, για διέγερση σε διάπραξη εγκλημάτων στις 15 Μαΐου 2011. Η κατ’ έφεση δίκη ενώπιον του Β’ Τριμελούς Πλημμελειοδικείου έγινε στις 21 Μαΐου 2018 και ο κατηγορούμενος καταδικάστηκε ερήμην. Στη συνέχεια το Αυτόφωρο Τριμελές Πλημμελειοδικείο ακύρωσε την ερήμην καταδίκη, προφανώς γιατί θεώρησε πως ευθύνη για την ερημοδικία φέρει κάποια δικαστική υπηρεσία. Η δίκη ενώπιον του Β’ Τριμελούς Πλημμελειοδικείου προσδιορίστηκε για τις 19 Σεπτεμβρίου 2018 αλλά ο κατηγορούμενος επικαλούμενος τότε την παρουσία του δικηγόρου του στη γνωστή δίκη της Χρυσής Αυγής ζήτησε και πήρε αναβολή για τη 1 Νοεμβρίου 2018. Σήμερα με το ίδιο αιτιολογικό ο κατηγορούμενος πήρε αναβολή για τις 3 Δεκεμβρίου 2018, παρόλο που η πράξη παραγράφεται στις 15 Μαΐου 2019.

Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας ώστε να αποφευχθεί η παραγραφή των δύο αδικημάτων, γεγονός που θα πλήξει το κράτος δικαίου και θα εκθέσει διεθνώς την Ελλάδα. Αιτούμεθα επίσης να διερευνήσετε τις πειθαρχικές ευθύνες των λειτουργών της δικαιοσύνης που έχουν συντελέσει ώστε οι δύο αυτές ποινικές διώξεις να αντιμετωπίζουν κίνδυνο παραγραφής.

Με τιμή

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς
Εκπρόσωπος ΕΠΣΕ      

31/10/2018: Αντιτσιγγανικό άρθρο για απόπειρα κλοπής σε νοσοκομείο στη Σπάρτη

22/10/2018: Racist discourse in Greece’s mainstream politics and media

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR (GHM)
Address: P.O. Box 60820, GR-15304 Glyka Nera
Telephone: (+30) 2103472259 Fax: (+30) 2106018760
e-mail: panayotedimitras@gmail.com website: https://greekhelsinki.wordpress.com



Racist discourse in Greece
s mainstream politics and media

third european tolerance forum

Panayote Dimitras

Co-manager of Greek Helsinki Monitor’s «Racist Crimes Watch» project

22 October 2018

In 2015-2016, three intergovernmental expert bodies dealing inter alia with racism, recommended to Greece:

In its 2015 report on Greece, the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) stated that its delegation was informed by various interlocutors that the widespread problem of hate speech had increased substantially since 2009, in particular in the context of the rise of Golden Dawn. These views were confirmed by a review of media, internet blogs and political discourse. Hate speech is mainly directed against migrants, Muslims and Roma, but also against Jews and LGBT persons…

Antisemitic stereotypes are not limited to far-right political parties, but have permeated large parts of society as well as some parts of the Greek Orthodox Church.”

ECRI insisted on two Minister of Public Order Nikos Dendias racist statements. First, in August 2012, he “stated that because of irregular migration “…the country perishes. Ever since the Dorians’ invasion 4,000 years ago, never before has the country been subjected to an invasion of these dimensions…this is a bomb on the foundations of the society and the state”… The term “bomb” was also used publicly in July 2012 by the same minister when referring to the centre of Athens, where many irregular migrants and asylum seekers often rent and live in overcrowded apartments characterised by substandard living conditions, often deprived of access to public social welfare services. It is noteworthy that two days later Golden Dawn referred to the minister’s statement as a “vindication of (its own) positions”. ECRI added that “There are other examples of dangerous comments, including that made in January 2014 by Sofia Voultepsi, member of Parliament for conservative/centre-right Nea Dimokratia. During a live television broadcast she called refugees “unarmed invaders, weapons in the hands of the Turks”. As a matter of fact, she was referring to the Farmakonisi shipwreck, which had resulted in the drowning of nine children and three women during a controversial Greek Coastguard operation to intercept irregular migrants.”

Moreover, ECRI added that Roma are not only victims of day-to-day insults by members of the general public, but also subject to negative stereotyping in political discourse. In October 2013, during a police raid on the Roma settlement in Farsala, a blond girl was taken from the couple who had raised her, because of the perceived lack of physical resemblance with them. Police suspected that the girl had been abducted – which turned out to be untrue – and the Minister of Public Order and Citizen Protection [Nikos Dendias], addressing police officers on this case, congratulated them for “dissolving ghettos of lawlessness where abduction of children occurred”.

ECRI also mentioned that it “has been informed by LGBT groups that homo- and transphobic hate speech, verbal harassment and inappropriate comments are common amongst the general public, resulting in LGBT persons feeling constantly discriminated against and excluded in day-to-day life” and cited statements by Golden Dawn members but also Bishops.

Finally, ECRI reported that “The anti-terrorism discourse in the media also often targets immigrants and refugees, as well as the Muslim community in general. Islamophobia has dramatically increased since the far-right press began to link Islam to terrorism.”

ECRI’s conclusion was that “The … acceptance of hate speech creates a general climate in Greek society that facilitates the increasing willingness to commit or tolerate acts of violence against [vulnerable] groups. Such statements encourage further popular hate speech…Hate speech is widespread in the media and on the Internet; it goes largely unchecked and unpunished.” ECRI recommended that Law 927/1979 is always applied to cases of hate speech in the media.

In its 2015 report on Greece, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) provided a condensed yet succinct reference to this issue, calling too for the prosecution of the perpetrators of hate speech and of other hate crimes:

Racism and xenophobia

  1. While acknowledging efforts made by the State party to combat hate crimes, the Committee is concerned that the new Law 4285/2014 and the provisions introduced in the Penal Code may hinder investigations and prosecutions of racist hate crimes involving public insults and defamation against groups. The Committee is also concerned about continued reports of racist attacks and hate speech against migrants, refugees and Roma. The Committee notes with concern that cases of racism are underreported allegedly due to lack of trust in the authorities and the absence of an effective complaints mechanism. The Committee regrets that sanctions imposed are insufficient to discourage and prevent discrimination.
  2. The State party should review its legislation with a view to ensuring that all advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred is prohibited by law, and that all cases of racially motivated violence are systematically investigated, that the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished, and that appropriate compensation is awarded to the victims. The State party should take effective measures to improve the reporting of hate crimes. Furthermore, the State party should strengthen its efforts to eradicate stereotypes and discrimination against migrants, refugees and Roma, inter alia, by conducting public awareness campaigns to promote tolerance and respect for diversity.

In its 2016 report on Greece, the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) gave an extensive review of the existing anti-racism legislation, arguing that its 2014 amendment that removed the old criminalization of hate speech provision makes it incompatible with the UN Anti-Racism Convention. It also called for the prosecution of all perpetrators of hate speech, including politicians and media:

Anti-racism legal framework

  1. While noting with appreciation the positive aspects incorporated in the new anti-racism law No. 4285/2014, the Committee remains concerned that the new law is not fully compliant with the requirements of article 4 of the Convention, particularly as it does not criminalise the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority and does not provide for a procedure to declare illegal, and prohibit, racist organizations. The Committee is also concerned at the persistence of the Golden Dawn political party in the State party, to which the delegation referred in its opening statement as the most prominent racist organization, inspired directly by neo-Nazi ideas (art. 4).
  2. Recalling its general recommendations No. 7 (1985) and No. 15 (1993) relating to the implementation of article 4 of the Convention, the Committee recommends the State party to bring its anti-racism legal framework in full compliance with the requirements of article 4 of the Convention, and ensure its strict application. The State party should among others, declare illegal, and prohibit, organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination, such as the Golden Dawn political party, as previously recommended by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

Racist hate speech and hate crimes

  1. The Committee is concerned about the increase in hate speech since 2009 coinciding with the rise of the Golden Dawn party, essentially targeting migrants, Roma, Jews and Muslims, including through the media, on the internet and social media platforms. The Committee is also concerned at the increase of racist and xenophobic attacks, particularly against asylum seekers and refugees, which is exacerbated by the economic crisis in the State party. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned at the low reporting rate of such crimes, despite some awareness raising measures taken to that end (arts. 2 and 4).
  2. The Committee urges the State party to effectively prevent, combat and punish racist hate speech and hate crimes. Recalling its general recommendations No. 35 (2013) on combating racist hate speech, and No. 31 (2005) on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, the Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Take appropriate measures to prosecute individuals, including politicians, for the acts prescribed by article 4, and provide information in its next report about police investigations, criminal proceedings, and sentences, including those related to the Golden Dawn political party and its members. The Committee wishes to underline that the fundamental right of freedom of expression should not undermine the principles of dignity, tolerance, equality and non-discrimination as the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities, among which is the obligation not to disseminate ideas on racial superiority or hatred;

(b) Strengthen the training on identifying, registering, preventing and combating hate crimes, hate speech and bias motivation, targeting the judiciary, police, prosecutors, and the labour inspectorate, and improve coordination between these institutions;

(c) Ensure that the media do not stigmatize, stereotype or negatively target non-citizens and ethnic minorities, and to this end, ensure the implementation and reinforcement of the mandate of the National Radio and Television Council which supervises and regulates the media with a view to prohibiting the broadcast of racist, xenophobic or intolerant statements, and that appropriate sanctions are handed down in such events;

(d) Undertake intensive country wide campaigns in collaboration with national human rights institutions and civil society actors aimed at promoting tolerance and denouncing racist attitudes, and sensitize the public on the legal prohibition of racial discrimination and on the available channels to lodge complaints, and facilitate victims’ access to justice including by strengthening legal aid system;

(e) Adopt concrete measures, in consultation with affected groups, to increase reporting of racist hate crimes by ensuring that the reporting mechanism is transparent and accessible, and finding ways for victims to have more trust in the police and the justice system;

(f) Improve data collection system for statistics on complaints of hate crimes, and provide detailed information in its next periodic report on such complaints and their results, including those collected by the Observatory for the Prevention of School Violence and Bullying, as well as disaggregated data on residence permits for humanitarian reasons granted to third-country nationals who are victims or witnesses of racist crimes;

(g) Expedite the adoption of the draft Anti-Racism Action Plan and provide it with resources, measurable indicators, and a time line framework, necessary for its effective implementation.

Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) was particularly pleased with the reports by ECRI, HRCttee and CERD as it was probably the only NGO that raised the issue of extensive unpunished hate speech in Greece, as well as the inappropriate amendment of the anti-racism law that removed the criminalization of hate speech (the old Article 2 of Law 927/79).

Following the first two reports (by ECRI and UN HRCttee), GHM launched in late 2015 the Racist Crimes Watch where racist crimes (profiling, speech, desecrations and vandalisms, discrimination and violence) are recorded and then referred to the Athens Prosecutor for Racist Crimes, who has to date opened some 300 criminal investigations, several of which have been referred to the prosecutors in other cities where the reported alleged crimes had occurred. We will list here some cases that do not involve extreme right media or politicians, nor bishops and other clergy.

New Democracy’s Vice-President Adonis Georgiadis reproduced on 22 March 2016 fake news that in Northern Greece some Muslims had removed the icon of Holy Mary and stopped ringing the bells so as not to upset Muslims calling for no tolerance to them. He never retracted even after the local Bishop and Mayor denied that such things had happened.

Aspropyrgos [Greater Athens] Mayor Nikos Meletiou published on 26 March 2016 one of his regular anti-Roma statements (calling them “gypos”) and bragged that he had stopped services offered to them. He was referred to trial for racist insult –without nay prosecution witnesses!- and was acquitted on 29 June 2018.

Deputy Regional Governor for Chios Island Stamatis Karmantzis, on 13 April 2016 said that “the only good Turk is the dead Turk.”

Grevena [Northern Greece] City Council decided on 23 May 2016 to refuse the creation of a reception facility for refugees.

Minister of Education Professor Theodosis Pelegrinis alleged in Parliament on 16 June 2016 what is known to be fake news, that is that Roma parents remove their children from schools once they receive the allowance for attendance, whereas it is known that the allowance is given at the end of the school year and only if there is satisfactory attendance.

Rhodes Island Mayor Foris Hadjidiakos on 22 July 2016 said that Roma have become the “curse of the island.”

Oraiokastro Mayor Asterios Gavotsis on 2 September 2016 refused access of refugee children to public schools. He was subsequently convicted to a suspended eight-month sentence on 26 March 2018. A second trial against him, a deputy Mayor and a Parents Association leader is scheduled for 10 January 2019.

Minister of Education Professor Theodosis Pelegrinis said in Parliament on 15 September 2016 that “with patience and perseverance, Jews secured the appropriation of the Holocaust so that they can claim their vindication” that was denounced as anti-Semitic by the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece.

Journalist Dimos Verykios on Alpha TV said on 12 January 2017 that “the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful in America and not only! Everywhere behind the great deals you will find a Jew as well! Or a Free Mason!” that was also denounced as anti-Semitic by the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece. The first Prosecutor for Racist Crimes found it admissible and opened a court file, but her successor ruled that this was the journalist’s opinion and it was factually correct; hence she archived the complaint.

During Easter 2017, GHM recorded and submitted to the Prosecutor for Racist Crimes 69 cases around Greece where one of the worse anti-Semitic traditions, condemned both by the official Church of Greece and the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece, the “burning of Judas” usually in front of churches and with the participation of local authorities, was celebrated. A year earlier, the official state Athens News Agency and the official state National Tourist Organization had promoted the “burning of Judas” as a positive tradition.

We will conclude with the most meaningful mainstreaming of Islamophobia. In the European Islamophobia Report (2015) it is written:

After the November attack in Paris a well-known author [Soti Triantafyllou] who has spoken against Islam and the multicultural model before, wrote a brief article in the newspaper Athens Voice attacking Islam. In this article she argued that Islam is not a religion like every other, that its nature is warlike and envious and that it is a political programme and an ideology of barbarisation. Furthermore, she argued that moderate Muslims are very rare if any and she added that she agrees with a saying of Marco Polo, that a fanatic Muslim is the one who cuts your head, while a moderate one holds your head for it to be cut. In her view, Islam is monolithic and has remained the same since the Middle Ages and the West should react against this threat. She expressed similar views in her interview in a mainstream newspaper, Kathimerini, about two weeks later, supporting the argument that violence is an endogenous problem of Islam and that it is Muslims’ fault that they were unable to be incorporated in Western societies.

Another well-known columnist in the same newspaper, Kathimerini, Takis Theodoropoulos, argued that despite the fact that Islam should not be completely identified with terrorism it is clear that it is closely related with terrorism, arguing that the answer to the question of why young Muslims are becoming violent is not an issue of inequalities but of the religion of Islam and of the imams and their preaching. He additionally argued that not all cultures and civilisations are able to evolve and surpass these fundamentalist trends that exist in every religion, implying that Islam belongs to this category. He wondered where these peaceful Muslims everyone mentions are and why they are not reacting.

In the European Islamophobia Report (2017) it is written:

With regard to the justice system there were no particular events or developments that could be considered as Islamophobic. What could be mentioned, though, is that during 2017 the trial of a well-known author [Soti Triantafyllou] who wrote an Islamophobic text after the attacks of November 2015 in Paris16 was to take place on July 21, but it was postponed for 2018. She is going to be on trial for violating the anti-racist law (n.4285/2014) and certain articles of the penal code and more particularly for pubic incitement of violence and hatred. It should be noted that the author was supported by other authors and journalists arguing either that her prosecution was in violation of her right of freedom of speech or that she said nothing wrong because Islam is indeed a problem and is not a moderate religion…

Similar articles, however, were published in moderate right-wing newspapers like Kathimerini where one can find articles by Takis Theodoropoulos who in the last years regularly writes about the so-called clash of civilizations, the violent character of Islam or the invention of Islamophobia.23 What needs to be underlined is that in most of these cases and despite the validity or the novelty of the information a kind of moral panic is constructed through attractive headlines and photos on front pages trying to disseminate a fear about Islam and Muslims…

In this section two additional players in the field are mentioned. The first is a neo-liberal former minister of the conservative party Nea Dimocratia, Andreas Andrianopoulos, who teaches at the American College of Greece (Deree) and is the director of the Institute of Diplomacy and International Developments at the same college. Through speeches, articles, books, his website and mainly his Twitter account, he continuously (re-)produces Islamophobic messages talking about “Islamic beasts” after terrorist attacks, about the threat of the thousands of immigrants coming to Greece, and, on the whole, implying that there is a cultural chasm between Islam and the West and that those who are friendly and open to Muslims will pay the price in the future.

Soti Triantafyllou was acquitted on 2 May 2018 with the prosecutor who recommended the acquittal arguing that “these views expressed by the defendant express the views that were in everyone’s mind after the attack on Bataclan. If you were listening to me and my friends during these days, we were saying exactly that.” There were no witnesses for the prosecution, but only two very well-known (supposedly anti-racism) activists as defense witnesses who, as was reported in the media and never denied, testified that the defendant’s text was not Islamophobic but “a cry in the name of anti-racist violence.”

Conclusion

Soti Triantafyllou was thus acquitted because her racist Islamophobic views are mainstream and shared by the majority of people, politicians, journalists and, most importantly, prosecutors and judges.

Aspropyrgos Mayor Nikos Meletiou was acquitted a few months later because his racist anti-Roma views are mainstream and shared by the majority of people, politicians, journalists and, most importantly, prosecutors and judges.

Journalist Dimos Verykios was not even referred to trial earlier that year because his racist anti-Semitic views are mainstream and shared by the majority of people, politicians, journalists and, most importantly, prosecutors and judges.

Notorious neo-Nazi author and politician Kostas Plevris had been acquitted by a majority of Supreme Court judges on 15 April 2010 of charges of anti-Semitism because the majority held that he is a scholar and historian [sic] who did not offend with his book “Jews: the Whole Truth” the Jews but merely the “Jews-Zionists” who are not an ethnic group protected by the anti-racism law. Once again, Plevris’ racist anti-Semitic views were mainstream and shared by the majority of people, politicians, journalists and, most importantly, prosecutors and judges all the way to the Supreme Court.

16/10/2018: Μηνυτήρια αναφορά για ρατσιστική αντιτσιγγάνικη παρουσίαση από Πρώτο Θέμα, ρευματοκλοπής από Da Capo

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗΣ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΑΣ

 

16 Οκτωβρίου 2018


Κυρίες/Κύριοι

Σας υποβάλλουμε συνημμένη άλλη μια μηνυτήρια αναφορά, στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος του Παρατηρητηρίου Ρατσιστικών Εγκλημάτων, με αντικείμενο τη ρατσιστική αντιτσιγγάνικη παρουσίαση από το Πρώτο Θέμα της ρευματοκλοπής που φέρεται να έκανε η καφετέρια Da Capo από γειτονικό πελάτη της ΔΕΗ για την οποία υπήρξε σύλληψη και δημοσιεύματα στις 11 Οκτωβρίου 2018. Ενώ όλα τα δημοσιεύματα της ημέρας εκείνης ανέφεραν την καταγγελλόμενη πράξη με το όνομα της πασίγνωστης καφετέριας, το Πρώτο Θέμα απέκρυψε το όνομα της καφετέριας και επέλεξε μόνο αυτό εντελώς ρατσιστικά να κάνει, όπως τόνισε η Documento,”ρατσιστική παρουσίαση της ρευματοκλοπής” για να τονίσει την ύπαρξη ανύπαρκτης “πατέντας που συνηθίζουν να χρησιμοποιούν συμμορίες Ρομά” που δήθεν χρησιμοποιήθηκε από την καφετέρια. Όμως, το ρεύμα δεν είναι κάτι που “συμμορίες” μπορούν να κλέψουν αφού η όποια ρευματοκλοπή μόνο άμεσα από το θύμα στο θύτη μπορεί να γίνει. Στην ειδησεογραφία υπάρχουν πάμπολλες αναφορές σε ρευματοκλοπές που δεν αφορούν μόνο Ρομά. Αντίθετα, η ρευματοκλοπή των Ρομά όποτε έχει γίνει δεν αφορά κλοπή από γείτονα, αλλά κλοπή συνήθως από τη ΔΕΗ/ΔΕΔΔΗΕ η οποία τους αρνείται συνήθως τη νόμιμη παροχή ρεύματος. Για αυτό άλλωστε και υπάρχουν δικαστικές αποφάσεις που απαλλάσσουν Ρομά από την κατηγορία της ρευματοκλοπής γιατί αξιολόγησαν για παράδειγμα (στις 10 Οκτωβρίου 2013) πως “η πράξη των κατηγορουμένων συνιστά πράξη τελούμενη σε κατάσταση ανάγκης, που αποκλείει το άδικο, επομένως πρέπει να κηρυχθούν αθώοι ως προς αυτήν.” Τα δύο κείμενα και η δικαστική απόφαση που επικαλούμαστε επισυνάπτονται.  

Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας καθώς και να μας ενημερώσετε για τον αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου που θα δώσετε στη μήνυση αυτή.
Με τιμή,

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς

Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι
διεύθυνση: ΤΘ 60820 – 15304 Γλυκά Νερά
—————————————————————————————————————————
Document-page-001Document-page-002
———————————————————————————————————————
—————————————————————————————————————————-


ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ ΠΑΡΑΤΗΡΗΤΗΡΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΣΙΝΚΙ (ΕΠΣΕ)

Τ.Θ. 60820, 15304 Γλυκά Νερά, Tηλ. 2103472259 Fax: 2106018760
email: office@greekhelsinki.gr ιστοσελίδα: http://cm.greekhelsinki.gr/


Σύγχρονοι Γιάννηδες Αγιάννηδες Ρομά
αθώοι για «απαραίτητη» ρευματοκλοπή «σε κατάσταση ανάγκης»!

του Παναγιώτη Δημητρά

15 Αυγούστου 2014

Στις 10 Οκτωβρίου 2013, ο Πλημμελειοδίκης Αθανάσιος Αθανασόπουλος του Β’ Αυτόφωρου Μονομελούς Πλημμελειοδικείου Αθηνών αθώωσε 16 κατηγορούμενους Ρομά του Χαλανδρίου που δικάζονταν με την κατηγορία της ρευματοκλοπής για την οποία είχαν συλληφθεί στις 27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013. Η απόφαση 87110/2013 ήταν ιστορική γιατί ο δικαστής είχε ακούσει τη δικηγόρο υπεράσπισης Ηλέκτρα Κούτρα, τους κατηγορούμενους και τους μάρτυρες (μεταξύ των οποίων και το γράφοντα) να δηλώνουν πως υπήρχε ρευματοκλοπή από το δίκτυο της ΔΕΗ, αλλά πως αυτή ήταν αναγκαία αφού από τη μια η ΔΕΗ τους είχε αρνηθεί νόμιμη σύνδεση επειδή ο καταυλισμός στον οποίο ζούσαν και ζουν ακόμα είναι αυθαίρετος και από την άλλη η απουσία ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος ενείχε κινδύνους για τη ζωή τους και συνέβαλε στη δραματική υποβάθμιση της ήδη τρισάθλια διαβίωσής τους, για την οποία ευθύνη είχε η πολιτεία. Το πρωτοδημοσιευόμενο εδώ σκεπτικό αθώωσής τους, που καθαρογράφτηκε στις 14 Μαΐου 2014 μετά από ειδική γραπτή αίτηση των κατηγορούμενων, στο οποίο επιρρίπτονται χωρίς περιστροφές ευθύνες στο κράτος, είναι τόσο εύγλωττο που περιττεύουν οι προσθήκες:

Από το σύνολο των αποδεικτικών μέσων, από τις καταθέσεις των μαρτύρων και τις απολογίες των κατηγορουμένων, αποδείχθηκε: Οι κατηγορούμενοι διατηρούν κατοικίες στον αυθαίρετο καταυλισμό Ρομά Χαλανδρίου Αττικής. Καίτοι οι συνθήκες διαβίωσης του καταυλισμού είναι άθλιες, ελλείπουν βασικότατες υποδομές, όπως η αποχέτευση, η παροχή νερού και ρεύματος, και οι κάτοικοι έχουν εκδηλώσει πρόθεση και διάθεση να συνεργαστούν για την μετεγκατάστασή τους, το Δημόσιο δια των υπηρεσιών του και των οργάνων του έχει επιδείξει πολυετή και χαρακτηριστική αδράνεια και ανικανότητα να ολοκληρώσει τη σχετική διαδικασία. Η αφόρητη και επικίνδυνη κατάσταση, που έχει δημιουργηθεί για την υγεία και τη ζωή των Ρομά εκεί και οι τριτοκοσμικές συνθήκες τύπου παραγκούπολης/φαβέλας έχουν οδηγήσει σε διεθνείς καταδίκες της Ελλάδας κι έχουν εκθέσει σοβαρά τη χώρα. Επί πολλά έτη οι άνθρωποι ζουν εκτεθειμένοι χωρίς νόμιμη σύνδεση για παροχή ρεύματος από τη ΔΕΗ, λόγω του ότι ο καταυλισμός είναι αυθαίρετος, ενώ οι αρμόδιες υπηρεσίες δεν έχουν φροντίσει να καλύψουν το σχετικό κενό ούτε με μια προσωρινή εγκατάσταση γεννήτριας ηλεκτροπαραγωγών ζευγών. Η διαβίωση πολλών βρεφών και μικρών παιδιών στον καταυλισμό δημιουργεί την αδήριτη ανάγκη λειτουργίας ψυγείων στις αυτοσχέδιες κατοικίες για τη διατήρηση γάλακτος και αποστειρωμένων μπιμπερό, πέραν του ότι είναι γενικά απαραίτητο για την ασφαλή διατήρηση αρκετών τύπων τροφίμων και μαγειρευμένων γευμάτων για όλους τους κατοικούντες στις οικείες αυτές. Επίσης, στον καταυλισμό ζουν άτομα διαβητικά, που χρειάζονταν εν λειτουργία ψυγείο για τη διατήρηση ενέσεων ινσουλίνης, άτομα που κάνουν αιμοκάθαρση και χρειάζονται για την επιβίωση τους υποστηρικτικές συσκευές οξυγόνου, ενώ όλα τα παιδιά του καταυλισμού είναι μαθητές σε σχολείο και χρειάζονται οπωσδήποτε φως για να διαβάσουν τα μαθήματα τους και να περαιώσουν τις σχολικές τους εργασίες, ανάγκη που μεγεθύνεται χρονικά το χειμώνα που το ηλιακό φως διαρκεί λιγότερο. Επιπλέον η παροχή ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος είναι απαραίτητη και για τη θέρμανση των κατοίκων, ιδίως ηλικιωμένων, μικρών παιδιών, ασθενών και ατόμων με προβλήματα υγείας, μέσω λειτουργίας ηλεκτρικού καλοριφέρ και σόμπας, λόγω του ότι οι αυτοσχέδιες οικίες του καταυλισμού στερούνται εγκατάστασης (και δυνατότητας εγκατάστασης) συστημάτων θέρμανσης πετρελαίου ή σύνδεσης (και δυνατότητας σύνδεσης) με το δίκτυο φυσικού αερίου, γεγονός που επιτείνεται τους χειμερινούς μήνες. Όλοι οι κατηγορούμενοι αντιμετωπίζουν τέτοια προβλήματα στις οικείες τους και διαβιούν με άτομα που ανήκουν στις προαναφερόμενες πολύ ευαίσθητες κατηγορίες.

Στην πολύ συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση που έρχεται ενώπιον του Δικαστηρίου και από τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά της, πρωτοφανή σε πανελλήνιο επίπεδο, από τις πολύ άθλιες συνθήκες διαβίωσης των κατηγορουμένων και των οικογενειών τους, από τις ιδιαίτερες ανάγκες τους, όπως ανωτέρω περιγράφονται και από το δεδομένο ότι η παροχή ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος αποτελεί βασικό αγαθό για τη διαβίωση των σύγχρονων ανθρώπων, στο οποίο το Κράτος οφείλει να παρέχει τη δυνατότητα πρόσβασης (ασχέτως αν οι πολίτες θα επιλέξουν να το χρησιμοποιήσουν), σε συνδυασμό με την πολυετή διαιώνιση του προβλήματος, έχει δημιουργηθεί μια εκρηκτική κατάσταση, η οποία ειδικά για τα άτομα που συμβιώνουν με τους κατηγορούμενους και ανήκουν σε υπερευαίσθητες ομάδες (βρέφη, νήπια, μαθητές, ασθενείς, ηλικιωμένους, άτομα με προβλήματα υγείας) διαμορφώνει συνθήκες διαρκούς κινδύνου για την υγεία και τη ζωή των ατόμων αυτών, η οποία οφείλεται πρωτίστως και κυρίως (η διαιώνισή του συγκεκριμένα) σε υπαιτιότητα του κράτους και των αρμόδιων υπηρεσιών και οργάνων του. Στα πλαίσια αυτά η πράξη των κατηγορουμένων να συνδεθούν παράνομα στο δίκτυο της ΔΕΗ συνιστά μια απολύτως απαραίτητη ενέργεια για την αποτροπή ή έστω τον περιορισμό του διαρκούς αυτού κινδύνου, ενώ η παράνομη αυτή ενέργεια προκαλεί βλάβη σημαντικά κατώτερη, τόσο κατά είδος, όσο και κατά σπουδαιότητα, από τη βλάβη που απειλήθηκε. Από τα ως άνω προκύπτει ότι η πράξη των κατηγορουμένων συνιστά πράξη τελούμενη σε κατάσταση ανάγκης, που αποκλείει το άδικο, επομένως πρέπει να κηρυχθούν αθώοι ως προς αυτήν.

Το άρθρο 25 του Ποινικού Κώδικα προβλέπει πως:

Δεν είναι άδικη η πράξη που τελεί κάποιος, για να αποτρέψει παρόντα και αναπότρεπτο με άλλα μέσα κίνδυνο, ο οποίος απειλεί το πρόσωπο ή την περιουσία του ίδιου ή κάποιου άλλου χωρίς δική του υπαιτιότητα, αν η βλάβη που προκλήθηκε στον άλλο είναι σημαντικά κατώτερη κατά το είδος και τη σπουδαιότητα από τη βλάβη που απειλήθηκε.

Το άρθρο το έχουμε συνδυάσει με αντίδραση σε καταστάσεις σαν του Γιάννη Αγιάννη των «Άθλιων» του Victor Hugo που τότε καταδικάστηκε για κλοπή ψωμιού την οποία είχε κάνει για να θρέψει αυτόν και τη λιμοκτονούσα οικογένειά του. Οι σύγχρονες κοινωνίες θεωρούν πως οι Γιάννηδες Αγιάννηδες δεν πρέπει να καταδικάζονται. Ο δικαστής Αθανάσιος Αθανασόπουλος απέδειξε, για άλλη μια φορά, πως υπάρχουν άξια στελέχη στο ελληνικό δικαστικό σώμα.

Αρκεί να βρεθούν και άλλοι συνάδελφοί του να τιμωρήσουν το κράτος για όσα ο δικαστής αυτός του καταμαρτυρεί με την απόφασή του. Γιατί αν είχαν μεταστεγαστεί νόμιμα και με αξιοπρέπεια οι «Άθλιοι» Γιάννηδες Αγιάννηδες του Χαλανδρίου, δεν θα υπήρχε ανάγκη ρευματοκλοπής πριν ένα χρόνο, αφού δεν θα υπήρχε ο καταυλισμός.

Αρκεί επίσης να βρεθούν δικηγόροι ανά την Ελλάδα να επικαλεστούν αυτή την ιστορική απόφαση στις δεκάδες δίκες Ρομά για ρευματοκλοπή που γίνονται κάθε χρόνο για να αθωώσουν τους πελάτες τους και έτσι να πιέσουν το κράτος να εξαλείψει αυτούς τους άθλιους καταυλισμούς.

Αρκεί να βρεθεί ένα νομικό περιοδικό να δημοσιεύσει την απόφαση με το συνήθη τρόπο που θα επιτρέψει σε δικηγόρους και δικαστές να την πληροφορηθούν και να την επικαλεστούν.

 

Μηνυτήρια αναφορά για αντιτσιγγανισμό και απειλές του Δημάρχου Ασπροπύργου Ν. Μελετίου

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗΣ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΑΣ


20 Οκτωβρίου 2018


Κυρίες/Κύριοι

 
 
Σας υποβάλλουμε συνημμένη άλλη μια μηνυτήρια αναφορά, στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος του Παρατηρητηρίου Ρατσιστικών Εγκλημάτων, με αντικείμενο τη ρητορική μίσους του Δημάρχου Ασπροπύργου και μέλους του Δ.Σ. της Κ.Ε.Δ.Ε. Νικολάου Μελετίου, κατά της κοινότητας των Ρομά πολιτών του Ασπροπύργου τους οποίους στοχοποιεί ως τους φορείς της εγκληματικότητας της περιοχής σε αντίθεση με το Ψήφισμα του Δημοτικού Συμβουλίου Ασπροπύργου που προκάλεσε και που δεν κάνει κάποια τέτοια σύνδεση. Ακολουθεί ενδεικτικό απομαγνητοφωνημένο απόσπασμα από το συνημμένο βίντεο με δηλώσεις του Δημάρχου όπου απειλεί και για μελλοντικές βίαιες ενέργειες: “(5:20) Είναι η πρώτη διαδήλωση-πορεία για να γίνει κατανοητό και να αντιληφθούν οι ιθύνοντες – αυτοί που έχουν την αρμοδιότητα- τι θα γίνει με την πόλη που προσφέρει στην εθνική οικονομία τα μέγιστα (πάνω από 35% στην εθνική οικονομία), τι θα γίνει με αυτήν την πόλη αυτή όπου η ανεξέλεγκτη ομάδα Ρομά που δραστηριοποιείται στην περιοχή εδώ και αρκετά χρόνια, δεν μπορεί να λογικευτεί. Για μας το ποτήρι ξεχείλισε. Η συνεννόηση, η αλληλογραφία, η δια ζώσης επικοινωνία, οι συναντήσεις, οι συσκέψεις, δεν έφεραν αποτέλεσμα. Πρέπει να κάνει κάτι η πολιτεία ώστε να λυθεί το πρόβλημα γιατί δεν αντέχουμε άλλο πια. Για να μη γίνουμε μάρτυρες κι άλλων επεισοδίων, να μη φτάσουμε στη χειροδικία όπως είχαμε φτάσει πριν 15 χρόνια, συνιστώ στην πολιτεία να μας ακούσει. (…).
 
 
16 Οκτωβρίου 2018
Απόκρυψη αναφερόμενου κειμένου
Έκλεισαν τη Νέα Εθνική Οδό Αθηνών – Κορίνθου οι Ασπροπύργιοι
Απόκρυψη αναφερόμενου κειμένου

ΑΜΕΣΗ ΚΙΝΗΤΟΠΟΙΗΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟ ΑΣΠΡΟΠΥΡΓΟΥ

Έκλεισαν τη Νέα Εθνική Οδό Αθηνών – Κορίνθου οι Ασπροπύργιοι

 

ΟΙ ΦΟΡΕΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑΣ ΝΑ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ ΤΟ ΚΑΘΗΚΟΝ ΤΟΥΣ
ΖΗΤΟΥΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΛΙΤΗ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΓΙΑ ΟΛΟΥΣ
ΟΧΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΓΚΛΗΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ
ΟΧΙ ΣΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΛΕΚΤΙΚΟ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΜΟ

Με αφορμή τη χθεσινή Εγκληματική Ενέργεια εις βάρος τριών υπαλλήλων του Δήμου Ασπροπύργου και σε εφαρμογή του Ψηφίσματος που εκδόθηκε από το Δημοτικό Συμβούλιο, πραγματοποιήθηκε σήμερα, Τρίτη 16 Οκτωβρίου 2018 η συγκέντρωση διαμαρτυρίας στην πλατεία έναντι των ΛΟΚ στην Παραλία Ασπροπύργου. Ο Δήμαρχος Ασπροπύργου και μέλος του Δ.Σ. της Κ.Ε.Δ.Ε., κ. Νικόλαος Μελετίου δήλωσε τα ακόλουθα:
«Η συνεχιζόμενη αυτή κατάσταση στην οποία βρίσκεται η πόλη μας, αναφορικά με την εγκληματικότητα, την παραβατικότητα και γενικά την ασφάλεια του πολίτη πρέπει να σταματήσει. Ειδικά μετά το θλιβερό γεγονός που συνέβη στο προσωπικό του Δήμου, εν ώρα εργασίας το ποτήρι ξεχείλισε! Η καθημερινή συμπεριφορά της συγκεκριμένης ομάδας, της χαρακτηριζόμενης κατά τα άλλα ευαίσθητης, της οποίας εμείς υφιστάμεθα το ρατσισμό, ενώ λένε εμάς ρατσιστές, συνεχίζει να δρα στην περιοχή μας πάνω από 20 χρόνια! Τα τελευταία χρόνια έχουμε διαπιστώσει εντεινόμενη προσπάθεια της Αστυνομίας να λύσει το πρόβλημα, το οποίο όμως παραμένει άλυτο. Αποφασίσαμε λοιπόν, η Δημοτική Αρχή και όλοι οι Δημοτικοί Σύμβουλοι να ξεκινήσουμε δυναμικές κινητοποιήσεις, διότι η προσπάθεια του πολιτισμένου πολιτικού λόγου, του εγγράφου ή της δια ζώσης σύσκεψης, συζήτησης με τους αρμόδιους δεν έχει φέρει αποτελέσματα. Βεβαίως, το πρόβλημα δεν αφορά μόνο τους παρόντες, αλλά αφορά όλον τον Ασπρόπυργο και εδώ θα έπρεπε να είμαστε μαζεμένοι χιλιάδες πολίτες. Ευελπιστώ, αν δεν εισακουστούμε και τώρα, να συνεχίσουμε τις δυναμικές κινητοποιήσεις. Ελπίζω τελικά, να καταλάβει η Πολιτεία ότι ο Ασπρόπυργος είναι ένα ξεχωριστό κομμάτι της Πατρίδας, ένα κομμάτι που δίνει τα μέγιστα στην Εθνική Οικονομία και δεν επιτρέπεται σήμερα, επιχειρήσεις και εργαζόμενοι να φοβούνται να πάνε στη δουλειά τους».

Μετά τις δηλώσεις του, ο Δήμαρχος Ασπροπύργου, κ. Νικόλαος Μελετίου, παρότρυνε τους παραβρισκόμενους, Δημοτική Αρχή, εργαζόμενους του Δήμου, Φορείς και Συλλόγους καθώς και Δημότες του Ασπρόπυργου, να πραγματοποιήσουν πορεία διαμαρτυρίας, κατά μήκος της Νέας Εθνικής Οδού Αθηνών – Κορίνθου.
Μετά το τέλος της πορείας, ο κ. Δήμαρχος αφού ευχαρίστησε όλους τους παρόντες, τόνισε ότι, αυτή η ενέργεια ήταν η πρώτη από όλες αυτές που θα ακολουθήσουν, μέχρι να εισακουστούν τα αιτήματά μας από τους Φορείς της πολιτείας.

——————————————————————————————————————

Θριάσιο

Απόκρυψη αναφερόμενου κειμένου
 

Οι δηλώσεις του δημάρχου στο 5ο λεπτό του βίντεο


Ο κος Μελετίου ανέφερε πως η συνεννόηση, η αλληλογραφία οι συναντήσεις και οι συσκέψεις δεν έφεραν κανένα αποτέλεσμα και ζητά δραστικα μέτρα απο την πολιτεία για να μην επαναληφθούν τέτοιου είδους επεισόδια.

Κάλεσε την πολιτεία να δεχθεί την πρόσκληση να γίνει αυτοψία για την κατάσταση στην πόλη και να ληφθούν άμεσα μέτρα. Έκανε επίσης λόγο για «άβατες» για τον πολίτη και τον εργαζόμενο περιοχές.

«Ως εδώ αντέξαμε, ο λαός θα δώσει το παρόν όπου χρειαστεί» κατέληξε ο δήμαρχος Ασπροπύργου.

_________________________________________________________________________

Το Δημοτικό Συμβούλιο με ομόφωνη απόφαση του, υιοθέτησε την πρόταση του Δημάρχου κ. Νικόλαου Μελετίου, και εξέδωσε το κάτωθι ψήφισμα:

ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ

Καταδικάζουμε απερίφραστα την εγκληματική ενέργεια της 15ης Οκτωβρίου 2018,  κατά υπαλλήλων του Δήμου και ζητούμε:
1) Άμεσα, συνάντηση – σύσκεψη διαπαραταξιακής αντιπροσωπείας του Δήμου και των Παραγωγικών Φορέων με την Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη και όλους τους Αρχηγούς των Σωμάτων Ασφαλείας.
2) Να ενισχυθούν οι περιπολίες των αστυνομικών οργάνων, της ΔΙΑΣ, του Αστυνομικού Τμήματος και του Τμήματος Ασφαλείας, όλο το 24ωρο και ιδιαίτερα κατά τις νυχτερινές, μεταμεσονύχτιες και τις πρώτες πρωινές ώρες, όταν οργιάζουν οι παράνομοι σε πολλές περιοχές του Ασπρόπυργου.
3) Να υπάρχει καθημερινή παρουσία της ΟΠΚΕ.
4) Να πάψει η περιοχή του Ασπρόπυργου να αποτελεί «νησίδα» μη εφαρμογής του Νόμου ή επιλεκτικής εφαρμογής του.
5) Να υπάρχει ίση μεταχείριση των πολιτών από τα Δικαστήρια.
Επίσης, αύριο, Τρίτη 16 Οκτωβρίου 2018 και ώρα 8:00 π.μ. καλούμε σε  συγκέντρωση διαμαρτυρίας, στην πλατεία έναντι των ΛΟΚ, στην Παραλία Ασπροπύργου, όλους τους Ασπροπύργιους, για την εγκληματικότητα στην πόλη μας.
Το παραπάνω Ψήφισμα θα κοινοποιηθεί στον Πρόεδρο της Δημοκρατίας, στον Πρωθυπουργό, στην Υπουργό Δημόσιας Τάξης, στους Αρχηγούς των Κομμάτων, σε όλους τους Βουλευτές, στον Αρχηγό της Ελληνικής Αστυνομίας, στον Υποστράτηγο της Γενικής Αστυνομικής Διεύθυνσης Αττικής, στον Ταξίαρχο Διεύθυνσης Αστυνομίας Δυτικής Αττικής, στο Διοικητή του Αστυνομικού Τμήματος Ασπροπύργου και στο Διοικητή του Αστυνομικού Τμήματος Ασφάλειας Ασπροπύργου.

Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας καθώς και να μας ενημερώσετε για τον αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου που θα δώσετε στη μήνυση αυτή.
 
Με τιμή,

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς 

Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι

email: panayotedimitras@gmail.com

address: PO Box 60820 – GR 15304 Glyka Nera Greece

04/10/2018: Μηνυτήρια αναφορά για τσιγγανοφοβικά κείμενα και κλοπή σκύλου με ρατσιστικά κίνητρα

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΣΗΣ ΡΑΤΣΙΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΒΙΑΣ


4 Οκτωβρίου 2018


Κυρίες/Κύριοι

Σας υποβάλλουμε άλλη μια μηνυτήρια αναφορά, στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος του Παρατηρητηρίου Ρατσιστικών Εγκλημάτων, με αντικείμενο δύο συνημμένες επώνυμες αναρτήσεις με σχόλια στο facebook για κλοπή σκύλου από Ρομά, δήθεν για την προστασία του, και στη συνέχεια διάθεσή του με συμβόλαιο υιοθεσίας συνοδευόμενες με ρατσιστικά σχόλια μέχρι και προτροπή σε βία για τους Ρομά τόσο από την συντάκτρια των αναρτήσεων όσο και από σχολιαστές στη συνέχεια (“γύφτοι”, “Πρέπει να μαζευοντε πολύ και να τους πλακώνουν τους κολογηφτους άτιμη φαρα” [sic], “σε κάθε καταυλισμό κακοποιούν τα ζώα που έχουν”. Τις αναρτήσεις έχει κάνει η Σοφία Κοντού-Κυριακίδου που αναφέρει και το κινητό τηλέφωνό της 6946496316 και στο προφίλ της ότι είναι κάτοικος Γλυφάδας και εργάζεται στο κατάστημα Beauty Care 2000 (https://m.facebook.com/BEAUTY-CARE-2000-129239340443666/) με διεύθυνση Πατησίων 14 (Στοά Φέξη) και τηλέφωνο 2105230920. Πρόκειται για κείμενα που εκφράζουν ρατσιστικό μίσος για τους Ρομά ενώ η αφαίρεση του σκύλου είναι κλοπή με ρατσιστικό κίνητρο (81ΑΠΚ).

Παρακαλούμε για τις ενέργειές σας καθώς και να μας ενημερώσετε για τον αριθμό πρωτοκόλλου που θα δώσετε στη μήνυση αυτή.
 
Με τιμή,

Παναγιώτης Δημητράς

Ελληνικό Παρατηρητήριο των Συμφωνιών του Ελσίνκι 
διεύθυνση: ΤΘ 60820 – 15304 Γλυκά Νερά
Document-page-001(1)Document-page-002(1)Document-page-003(1)
Document-page-001
Document-page-002Document-page-003Document-page-004