Dear friends, good day to you all!
Delays in the administration of justice have for years been one of the deepestinstitutional ills ofour country. And perhaps the most alarming aspect is not the existence of this phenomenon itself, but rathersociety’sgradualacceptanceof it.
The sense that justice in Greece is slow—oftenexcruciatinglyslow—has ceased to be a surprise. It has almost become part of thenorm.
In this context,
yesterday’s remarksby
Kyriakos Pierrakakis, Minister of National Economy and Finance, during the swearing-in ceremony of new members of the State Legal Council, take on particular political significance and at the same time constitute a
glaring contradiction.
The ministeracknowledgedthat the pursuit of justice risks becoming an “endless and exhausting process” for citizens, while calling forthe accelerationof proceedings, particularly in cases involving Mati, Mandra, and Tempi.
This comes in the wake of a similar request submitted by the government to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office,thoughexclusivelyto expedite the handling of cases involvingpolitical figures andnot the general public.
The observation that the administration of justice needs to be expedited is obviously correct. The question that arises, however, concerns who bearsthe primary responsibilityfor changing this situation.
Because the administration of justice is not expedited by wishes, appeals, or moral exhortations directed at its officials. It is accelerated by specificinstitutional choices: administrative reorganization, digitization, increased staffing, clear evaluation, effective disciplinary mechanisms, and, above all,the political will to confrontchronic dysfunctions. And for all of this, the primary responsibility lies first and foremost with theexecutive branch.
That is, thegovernment.
Of course, the judicial system itself cannot be exempt from criticism. The leadership of the highest courts—the Supreme Court, the Council of State, and the Court of Auditors—also bearsserious responsibilityfor addressing administrative inertia and the backlog of pending cases.
The independence of the judiciary cannot serve asan excuse forthe absence of evaluation and accountability. And this is precisely the crux of the matter. Because when a minister calls on judicial officials to speed up the administration of justice, it creates the impression that the government is shifting part of itsownresponsibilityonto people working within an already cumbersome and overburdened system.
It is as if they are being asked to “pull the snake out of the hole”, without the state having decisively addressed the deeper causes of the problem.
At the same time, the recent case of a judge in Alabama, USA, who wassuspended from dutydue to systematic delays and administrative dysfunction, highlights what happens in well-coordinated and rationally organized states.
Not only because it serves as a reminder that delays in the administration of justice—sometimes to the extent ofdenial of justice—can amount to inadequate judicial protection, but also because it shows that astate governed by the rule of lawmust have mechanisms for intervention when dysfunction exceeds tolerable limits.
The quality of justice is not judged solely by the legal correctness of decisions. It is also judged by thetimewithin which they are issued.
Citizens often do not fear that they will lose their case; they fear thatthey will not be ableto see justice donein time, or that it will ultimately be “too late” for justice by the time the relevant court decision is issued. And that is precisely whereGreece’s great failure lies: not only in the existence of the problem, but mainly in the chronic inability of the political and institutional system to address it with consistency, boldness, and genuine accountability.
As long as this does not change, the justice system will remain an open wound—not only for the citizens who suffer, but also for the country’s institutional credibility itself.