GJKKO Judge Irena Gjoka has been the target of attacks and accusations from politics, more specifically from the opposition, for 3 years, linking her name to a conviction by the Greek justice system dating back 2 decades. This week, the General Prosecutor's Office, after a verification that lasted 2 years, came to the conclusion that GJKKO Judge Irena Gjoka had been convicted in Greece, on the charge of visa forgery, also emphasizing that "the conviction is true and authentic". In the self-declaration form in 2016, within the framework of the decriminalization law, Judge Gjoka did not declare the conviction. To the question on the form whether she had ever been convicted by a final decision, Irena Gjoka answered "NO" and the same answer results for the question whether any non-final court sentence has ever been issued against her.
But what are the judge's defensive arguments regarding the sentence from the Greek justice system?
BalkanWeb has secured the testimony of the GJKKO judge sent in written form to the High Judicial Council. Her statements were received with interest given the importance of the institution she represents as part of the new justice system, but also the successful completion of the Vetting process in all three of its components. Vetting relies, among other things, on the self-declaration of the subject, as an essential element for assessing the fulfillment of the criteria for confirmation in office by members of the justice system. And precisely, false self-declaration constitutes a legal violation and brings direct consequences for members of the justice system within the framework of the Vetting process.
Judge of the GJKKO, Irena Gjoka, has recounted in detail the starting point of her "clash" with the Greek authorities, at the end of 2002, when she was traveling to the neighboring country with a visa obtained at the Greek consulate in Albania, but the border police had denied her entry. The Greek authorities' refusal decision was repeated on February 13, 2003. The ban on entry into Greek territory was unfair for Judge Gjoka.
Regarding the sentence imposed by the Greek judiciary, with three months' imprisonment, a fine of 1500 euros, and court costs of 73 euros, while the prison sentence was converted into a financial payment of 4.4 euros for each day in prison, a decision that was never implemented, Irena Gjoka stated before the Supreme Court of Justice that she was not notified of the development of the legal proceedings against her and had no information.
"I personally have not been informed, neither officially nor in fact, about the administrative judicial process or any other process conducted against me in the Greek courts," the judge stated, continuing: "After administrative or other decisions in my name were published in the media, not being aware of any decision, I authorized a representative with a special power of attorney to obtain information about what was being published."
She also claimed that the conviction was never recorded in the criminal record and, therefore, the conviction is considered as if it never existed.
“The decision of 07.06.2005, of the Court of First Instance with three members for the Ioannina Misdemeanor, was never notified to me and this decision has not become final. According to Article 473 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, the deadline for filing an appeal for defendants with an unknown residence is 30 days from the date of notification of the decision (the decision which was never notified). Before the deadline for appeal expired, Law No. 3346/2005 “Acceleration of proceedings before civil and criminal courts and other provisions” was adopted on 17.06.2005. According to the interpretation carried out by the ECtHR, in the case of Panou v. Greece (no. 44058/05, 8 January 2009), the conviction decision archived under this law is considered null and void, provided that, for a period of 18 months from publication of the law (June 17, 2005), not to commit another intentional criminal offense, for which he would be ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for more than six months. According to the interpretation of the ECHR, even though he lost the right to appeal, the effects of the law were equivalent to acquittal. This was also the purpose of the law, which aimed to accelerate criminal justice, among other things, by reducing the number of appeals for minor cases. Thus, in application of this law, the prosecutor has decided to archive the decision taken against me on 07.06.2005”, said judge Irena Gjoka.
The member of the GJKKO further added that "regarding the above-mentioned decision, I express my reservations regarding the legality in substance of this decision, but also the legality of the procedural aspects of its adoption."
Excerpt from Irena Gjoka's letter to the Supreme Court:
"On December 24, 2002, I, Irena Gjoka, presented myself at the Greek border crossing point, Kakavija, where the border police denied me entry into the Greek state (after a debate with the border police officer). I assessed that the Greek authorities had no reason to deny me entry into Greece and for this reason I was provided with another visa, at the Greek consulate in Albania. Subsequently, on February 13, 2003, I presented myself again at the border, where I was again denied entry, unjustly.
Since I was convinced of the illegality of the administrative measure taken against me, the refusal of entry into the Greek state, under the conditions when I had no right of entry into this state, on 31.03.2003, I authorized the citizen Andon Konomi/Ikonomou (this citizen did not have the capacity of a lawyer) to oppose on my behalf the administrative measure taken illegally and arbitrarily by the Greek authorities, at the Ministry of Public Order in Athens or any other institution, to carry out any type of action that is not prohibited by law, specifically related to the measure of entry ban issued against me.
Despite this fact, I have not personally been informed, either officially or in fact, of the administrative judicial process or any other process conducted against me in the Greek courts. After administrative or other decisions in my name have been published in the media, and not being aware of any decision, I have authorized a representative with a special power of attorney to obtain information about what was being published.
From the documents submitted to me by my representative and the documents forwarded by the Greek authorities by registered letter, through the General Prosecutor's Office, I have been informed for the first time about the decision taken by the Court of First Instance of Ioannina with no. 1447/2005, dated 07.06.2005, according to which I was convicted in absentia by this court on 07.06.2005, without the presence of a defense attorney, without being informed of the process against me, as during the investigation and trial of the case, for the offense provided for in paragraph 7 of article 54 of law 2910/2001 entitled "Entry and stay of foreigners in Greek Territory", with three months of imprisonment and a fine of 1500 Euros. The prison sentence has been converted into a fine of 4,4 Euros per day.
The decision of 07.06.2005, of the Court of First Instance with three members for minor offences of Ioannina, has never been notified to me and this decision has not become final. According to Article 473 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, the deadline for filing an appeal for defendants with unknown residence is 30 days from the date of notification of the decision (the decision which has never been notified). Before the deadline for appeal expired, on 17.06.2005, Law No. 3346/2005 “Acceleration of proceedings before civil and criminal courts and other provisions” was adopted. According to the interpretation carried out by the ECtHR, in the case of Panou v. Greece (no. 44058/05, 8 January 2009), the conviction decision archived under this law is considered null and void, provided that, for a period of 18 months from the publication of the law (17 June 2005), no other intentional criminal act is committed, for which a final sentence of imprisonment of more than six months would be imposed. According to the interpretation of the ECtHR, even though the right to appeal was lost, the effects of the law were equivalent to acquittal. This was also the purpose of the law, which aimed to accelerate criminal justice, among other things, by reducing the number of appeals for minor cases. Thus, in application of this law, the prosecutor decided to archive the decision taken against me on 07.06.2005.
