The Supreme Court announced today, Wednesday, its decision to reject the request to file a private criminal complaint on behalf of Georgios Maltezou, a union member of the “Isotita” union, Georgios Maltezos, against five government officials.
The proposed complaint was directed against the Minister of Justice and Public Order, the deputy director of the Central Prison, a senior legal affairs official at the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, the Director General of the same Ministry, as well as an official from the Prisons Department.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The charges concerned the failure to provide effective protection to the workers’ representatives against any action detrimental to them, including dismissal, and which is attributable to their status and activities as employee representatives, in violation of the provisions of the Convention Concerning Employee Representatives (Ratification) Act of 1995.
They also concerned the obstruction of effective protection and/or the obstruction of freedom of association, which may be detrimental to the complainant, including dismissal attributable to his status or activities as an employee representative, in violation of Law 46 (III)/2005 of Law 1/90 and Article 21.2 of the Constitution.
The Court’s decision is based primarily on the absence of an employment relationship on the part of the petitioner, George Maltezou, who worked as a prison guard under a permanent contract with the Republic of Cyprus. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed indictment seeks to influence and annul the administrative and disciplinary proceedings brought against the petitioner for unjustified absence from work, with the Court stating that proceeding with the indictment would constitute an abuse of judicial process.
Specifically, the decision states that the petitioner “does not have an employment relationship with the Republic of Cyprus and, consequently, nor with the proposed defendants” and that “his indefinite-term employment as a correctional officer in the Department of Prisons falls within the broader scope of the Republic’s public service and is governed by the rules of administrative law.”
Furthermore, it refers to the term “enterprise” as used in the law to describe an economic entity, that is, an enterprise engaged in economic activity. “The Republic of Cyprus does not constitute such an enterprise or economic entity under the aforementioned Law. “Therefore, the applicant’s employment as a prison guard cannot fall within the scope of Law 30(III)/1995,” the Court explains, noting that the applicant’s employment is governed by the rules of administrative law.
Finally, the Court notes that “by advancing the proposed charge, the aim is, in essence, to influence and nullify the administrative and disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant for unjustified absence from his job,” while noting that “according to the petitioner’s attorneys, the disciplinary proceedings in question remain pending, despite the petitioner’s subsequent dismissal from his job by decision of the Ministry of Justice.” Given these facts, it concludes that “proceeding with the proposed indictment can only constitute an abuse of the judicial process.”
Maltezos’ dismissal will be challenged in court, says Isotita
“I have the utmost respect for the institution of justice, I comply with the decision, and I do not attribute any ulterior motive or bias to any judge,” states Prodromos Christofias, President of the union, in a statement issued by Isotita, while also expressing strong concerns “because a review of the reasoning demonstrates, in my view, omissions that leave thousands of public-sector employees without the criminal protection that the law itself promised them.”
The concerns expressed by the President of Equality relate in particular to the emphasis placed on the applicant’s terms of employment and the lack of a relationship of subordination to the Republic of Cyprus. Furthermore, regarding the Court’s position on abuse of power in the event that the indictment is pursued, he notes that “it disregards the facts we presented before the Court” and that “the legal substance of our complaint consisted precisely in the fact that the disciplinary proceeding itself constituted the alleged anti-union retaliation; seeking criminal protection against it does not, in my view, constitute an abuse, but rather the explicit application of the Law itself.”
He further adds that “a criminal court, moreover, has no authority to annul an administrative or disciplinary act—we sought exclusively a ruling on the individual criminal liability of five persons, a ruling that no disciplinary body can issue.”
“Personally, I will not accept a two-tier system for employees when it comes to their fundamental rights. We will explore every available legal remedy with our legal advisors, complementing the proceedings already pending at the international and European levels,” concludes the President of Equality, adding that the dismissal of Giorgos Maltezos will also be challenged in court, as the union deems it unlawful.
Source: CNA
