Five judges were dismissed due to long delays in issuing decisions

From Disciplinary Plenum of 5 high court judges were dismissedwhile he was not fired a judgewhich had delays due to serious health problemsbut the reset and thus remains in the judiciary.

In particular, the Disciplinary Plenary of the Supreme Court, under the chairmanship of Ioanna Klapa-Christodouleas and with the participation of the prosecutor of the Supreme Court Georgia Adeilini, was concerned with the question of the permanent suspension of judges, for inadequacy in the exercise of judicial function, due to the many delays in making decisions over a long period of time.

In more detail, she was unanimously dismissed permanently, with the possibility of being able to work in the public sector of the first instance, which was experiencing delays from the first moment of her entry into the judiciary, as a paredros.

According to the annual inspection reports, the arrears per year was from 36 to 130 cases, while 73, 61, 53, etc. had been repeatedly taken from her. case files, during various judicial years, while she had been imposed disciplinary penalties of one and three months fine and had been deemed inadmissible.

According to the submission, there were protests from the Bar Association, as well as parties, for its delays, while the delays had an increasing rate.

Also, according to the recommendation, in 11 of the 12 inspections that were made to her, there is a reference to delays, as well as that she had no conscience, she burdened her colleagues with the case files that were taken from her and charged to others, and she inconvenienced lawyers and litigants.

For the remaining four, the standard dismissal procedure was followed.

With the question of dismissal, she had been referred to the Plenary and second, first instance, which had long delays in issuing decisions ranging from 22 to 100 per year, while she had 11 disciplinary decisions against her which imposed fines of deprivation of salary from 10 days to one month. There was even a case where it took 29 months to issue a decision.

According to the Areopagite rapporteur, the first trial had long delays in the previous years, but according to the latest inspection report the delays had almost disappeared and she suggested not to stop, as there is no reason.

The trial judge stated that she had been dealing with a succession of very serious chronic health problems for a long period of time, had undergone surgeries and had been on sick leave for 11 months. Then she broke her arm and was in a cast. Nevertheless, he was able to and zeroed in on the delays.

Finally, the Plenary decided unanimously that he should not be fired