Published on 11 July 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10294/17 Isidoros DOGIAKOS against Greece lodged on 30 January 2017 communicated on 20 June 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the disciplinary sanction imposed to the applicant, a Public Prosecutor and Director at the time of the Prosecution Office of the Athens Court of Appeal (“the Prosecution Office”).

The applicant, in his capacity as Director of the Prosecution Office, convened on 1 October 2015 the Prosecution Service of the Athens Court of Appeal in plenary session, in order to discuss the following agenda item: “ Non-institutional interference of the President of the Court of Cassation in the autonomous administration of the Prosecution Service of the Athens Court of Appeal ”. That subject was related to a letter that the President of the Court of Cassation had addressed to the Minister of Justice in which she had argued that the applicant’s election as Director had not been lawful.

A preliminary investigation followed which, on 15 January 2016, concluded that the applicant’s election had been in accordance with the rules and that the President of the Court of Cassation had no authority to review the lawfulness of the election, a task which fell within the exclusive competence of the Prosecution Office concerned. It additionally held that the agenda item in the plenary session of the Prosecution Service had merely referred to the lack of competence of the President of the Court of Cassation in respect of disciplinary matters concerning the Public Prosecutors and did not reveal the applicant’s intention to undermine her authority; therefore, the applicant had not committed any disciplinary offence. The conclusions of the preliminary investigation were endorsed by the President of the Council of the Courts’ Inspection.

Nevertheless, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant by the Minister of Justice. The applicant was accused of inappropriate and undignified conduct due to introducing the above-mentioned item to the agenda of the plenary session of the Prosecution Office. The applicant was convicted by the seven-member disciplinary council to a written reprimand. Following appeals lodged by him, the Minister of Justice and the President of the Council of the Courts’ Inspection, the nine-member disciplinary council upheld the applicant’s conviction and imposed on him a fine in the amount of forty-day net salary. Subsequently, the applicant was demoted from his position as Director of the Prosecution Office.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of the disciplinary sanction imposed on him for introducing the item “ Non-institutional interference of the President of the Court of Cassation in the autonomous administration of the Prosecution Service of the Athens Court of Appeal ” to the agenda of the plenary session of the Prosecution Service?