GREECE

The truth about the judges

C. M. WOODHOUSE

My acquaintance with the clash between the Greek judiciary and the military government, which led to the recent dismissal by the ex-colonels of the President of the Council of State and the deportation without trial of a number of other eminent Greek lawyers, began in Agrinion last April. Agrinion is a town in western Greece, north of the Gulf of Cor- inth. It lies in a tobacco-growing area, and tobacco-workers have a tradition of leaning towards the extreme left in politics. In this particular area, however, the German occu- pation left behind it another tradition as well. It was one of the areas in which the anti-Communist, pro-Republican resistance led by General Napoleon Zervas, was strong. Most of his adherents. have since tended to support the successors to the old Liberal party of Venizelos, and in particular the Centre Union under the late George Papandreou. They regard the Communist party of Greece and the present military government with almost equal hostility.

Since many of them are old friends of mine, I naturally made contact with them when I visited Agrinion. I was invited to dine with them at a well-known restaurant, but many of them received telephone calls from the police advising them not to attend. Consequently our dinner-party was not a great success, at any rate in numbers. My host identified the plain-clothes police round the room, outnumbering the party at our table by two to one. By chance, however, the next table was occupied by a family party, whose host was a friend of my host. So we were introduced, and in this way I met for the first time Mr Alexander Phloros, who has since been deported without trial by the military government.

Alexander Phloros is a professional lawyer who has served as public prosecutor (or district attorney) in a number of differ- ent parts of Greece, most recently in Rhodes. His elder brother, Antony Phloros, is (or was) a member of the Areopagus- that is, a high court judge. Both were removed from their posts in May 1968, along with some thirty other judges and prosecutors, by the military government. The judge had the honour of being per- sonally informed of his dismissal by Mr Pattakos, the ex-brigadier who is now Minister for Home Affairs, with the words: 'Either you resign or you are dismissed.' He refused to resign.

Both the brothers Phloros were told that they had no right to a hearing and no right of appeal. Both nevertheless decided to take their case to the Council of State, a judicial body whose tasks include 'the annulment, upon petition, of acts of the administrative authorities. Each of them prepared a detailed statement of his case for presentation to the council, and Alexan- der Phloros gave me copies of both state- ments when we met again later in April. The cases had been heard two or three weeks earlier.

The two statements make an interesting contrast. That of Alexander Phloros is a long typewritten document, carefully drafted in great detail. The statement of the judge, Antony Phloros, is simply a transcript of his speech to the council. It is shorter and livelier, full of wit and a kind of gay, impromptu bravado. In places it has a striking affinity with the Apology of Socrates as recorded by Plato. This affinity seems to have struck the President of the Council. who interjected at one point: 'You will not delirer me of such an observa- tion'—using a verb derived from the pro- fession of midwife, which was of course one of Socrates's own favourite metaphors.

Both statements, which were presented to the council of state in March this year, argue that the dismissals were illegal. They state that the government itself came to power illegally; that even if its de facto legality is now established, it is bound by its own declared principles, which include the separation of the executive and judicial powers; and in the case of both judges and prosecutors, that their tenure has been recognised as permanent under every Greek constitution, and cannot be terminated except by a judicial process. It is conceded that there have been exceptions in the past, in circumstances of extreme emergency. It is also conceded that an intricate legal argu- ment can be mounted on the other side.

The issue, briefly, turns on the continuing legality or otherwise, under the new con- stitution of September 1968, of executive actions taken under the old constitution, at a time when certain of its clauses were sus- pended, despite the fact that the actions themselves would have been illegal under either constitution when in full operation. Put more simply still, are the military government right to contend that the law is what they say it is, neither more nor less? Mr Antony Phloros expressly compares this doctrine with 'the will of the Fiihrer' in Nazi Germany. The government refused to test the issue in the courts, by declaring that the dismissed lawyers had no right to a hearing and no right of appeal. The Council of State therefore showed consider- able courage in agreeing to receive their petitions.

More interesting than the legal intricacies. at least to foreigners, are the substantive reasons given for the dismissals. At least the government told them what these were, and both Antony and Alexander Phloros include them in their statements. Antony Phloros, the judge, quotes three charges: that he formed a trade union of lawyers, that he publicly criticised the government. and that he used his official position to give support to a particular political party (Papandreou's Centre Union). The same three charges were brought against Alex- ander Phloros, with two more: that he had been associated with the Communist party of Greece. and that he 'was not inspired by healthy social principles'.

Neither of them had much difficulty in rebutting these charges. They pointed out that what they had formed was not a trade union but a professional society, covered by the constitutional right of association. They claimed a duty to criticise the govern- ment if it sought to act illegally. They showed that in their professional capacity they had been obliged at different times to take up positions against every one of the political parties, including the Centre Union. Alexander Phloros also waxed eloquent on the healthiness of his social principles.

The most striking charge against Alex- ander Phloros was that of an association with the Communists. As evidence that he was not a Communist, he emphasised that he had been accepted as a candidate for parliament in 1946 by the party led by General Napoleon Zervas. He admitted that in January 1943 he had joined ELAS in his native area, near Agrinion. He did so not knowing that EAM, which controlled the guerrilla army known as ELAS, was itself controlled by the Communists. Many other patriotic Greeks were similarly deceived at the same time. One of them was a Lieuten- ant Dimitrios Patilis, who joined ELAS at the same time as Alexander Phloros, and later deserted to join the Security Battalions, which the Germans formed to suppress the Resistance. Patilis is today a deputy prime minister in the Greek military government.

The charge of communism dogged Alex- ander Phloros for many years. He records that in the subsequent civil war (1946-49) he was suspended from his work in the prosecutor's office in Kozani (Macedonia), then under martial law, because the com- manding general was persuaded that he was 'unreliable'. Later the general confirmed in writing that he had been misled by fabri- cated evidence. The man who presented the evidence was a personal friend of Dimitrios Patilis.

These are only samples of the vast mass of detail comprised in the two brothers' statements. Alexander Phloros told me that he put his case on record only as a gesture of defiance, because he was certain that the Council of State was bound, under instruc- tions from the military government, to re- ject it.

But surprisingly enough, the Council of State itself defied the government, by accept- ing the cases of both brothers and all their other colleagues. Last month. the President of the Council declared that the dismissals were illegal and that all of those involved must be restored to their posts. Alexander Phloros promptly flew to Rhodes to take up office again as public prosecutor. The reaction of the military government was predictable. Mr Papadopoulos publicly accused the President of the Council of State of attempting a coup dela' and of infring- ing the rule of law. He demanded the presi- dent's resignation, which was refused; he then announced that the resignation of the president had been accepted, along with

several other members of the council. Phloros was, of course, forcibly prevented from entering his office in Rhodes and put on the next aeroplane back to Athens. Shortly afterwards he was arrested and de- ported without trial, along with several other lawyers who had displeased the government in various ways.

The story is not ended, but no one knows how it will continue. I admit that if is perfectly possible that the Phloros brothers have no valid case, either in fact or in law. The matter has never been tested in court. But supposing the military government is technically in the right under the new constitution, one critical question remains. How many Greeks who voted for the constitution on 29 September 1968 under- stood that this was what they were voting for?