The judge presiding over the case of former Commissioner Yiannakis Yiannaki rejected his request for her recusal, citing that “in the absence of valid grounds, the impartial pre-determination of the court’s composition, a critical element for the proper administration of justice, is undermined.” She added that any decision to recuse herself without good reason but based on unfounded and unsubstantiated claims would amount to an abdication of her duties.
The grounds for Yiannaki’s request
Giannakis argued before the court that he believed it was biased against him, allegedly influenced by media pressure for a swift resolution of the case. He further claimed that the court’s schedule did not justify prioritising the commencement of his trial, as there were older cases pending. He also alleged that the court had placed undue pressure on his lawyer, leading to the latter’s resignation.
Judge‘s ruling
In her ruling, the judge emphasised the court’s duty to ensure every defendant’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as enshrined in Article 30.2 of the Constitution. She stated that without valid reasons, any decision to recuse herself would undermine the integrity and impartiality of the court.
“For the reasons I have outlined, I find the request for my recusal from this case unjustified and lacking merit. Therefore, the request is rejected,” the judge concluded.
Background of the case
The judge provided a detailed background of the case. The proceedings began on 26 May 2022 and came before the current court on 27 September 2023. The court dealt with a request for a preliminary examination of claims related to a fair trial, which resulted in a decision after additional applications were filed on 19 July 2024.
From that point, the trial was designated as ongoing and prioritised accordingly. Following the start of substantive hearings on 16 October 2024, three court dates were scheduled between then and 28 November 2024, all arranged in coordination with the lawyers from both sides. The judge noted that all postponement requests from the defendant’s lawyer, often citing professional travel, were approved.
The judge also addressed the claim that the court focused only on older or remand cases, assuring the defendant that this was inaccurate and a result of misinformation. Decisions have been issued in cases newer than this one after substantive hearings.
The court concluded that the 40-day period since the resignation of the defendant’s lawyer provided ample time for the appointment of new legal representation. The judge reiterated that there was no basis for the request for recusal, reaffirming her commitment to an impartial and fair trial process.
Also read: Υiannakis requests judge’s recusal over alleged bias
