The Supreme Judicial Council states that Doria Varoshiotou herself knows why her appointment was not confirmed, having been served with a reasoned decision.
Whatever reasons the Council may cite, public opinion will find it difficult to believe that the cause is not her “inappropriate behaviour” displayed on at least three occasions.
The system, in its arrogant certainty, often makes wrong moves. In this particular case, the mistake was the decision to assign the death inquest for Thanasis Nicolaou to Doria Varoshiotou.
As a young judge under probation, she would logically not deviate from the prescribed line. This may well have been the primary reason such an important case was assigned to her—to vindicate the prevailing view that had dominated for 20 years. However, the establishment’s expectations were not fulfilled.
Warning bells rang from the moment she displayed defiance towards the representative of the Law Office during proceedings. A month after her decision, she was transferred from the criminal to the civil court, where she exhibited the same “inappropriate behaviour”.
Not only did she refuse to change her findings in two death inquests (a traffic collision and a labour accident), but she also exposed the president of the Limassol District Court who had asked her to modify her decisions.
In a written memorandum to the court president, which she published on a legal website, she stated: “No one can intervene in the work of a death inquest investigator after the issuance of their findings, and this can only be annulled following an application for a writ of certiorari. With full respect to the President of the District Court, I believe that the instruction given to me cannot be executed.”
After this, she obviously knew her career as a judge would end. Yesterday, one day before her probationary period expired, she was dismissed. The decision is easy to justify—these are not mathematical equations that allow no other interpretation.
Someone’s actions can be interpreted in various ways. Moreover, there is always the invocation of public interest.
Few, however, will be convinced that the Judicial Council’s decision was not vindictive and unrelated to an attempt by the system to rid itself of those who step so noisily out of line. What is achieved, however, is not the protection of the systThe Dismissal of theem, but the opposite.
The tragic reality is that one institution after another is being dismantled before the public’s eyes. Justice was perhaps the last bastion, and it too has fallen.
