Blog

Prologue

It is a historically indisputable fact, and indeed with irrefutable evidence, that Eleftherios Venizelos contributed, among other things, decisively to the consolidation of the Rule of Law in the Greek Legal Order, especially through the institutions established by the Constitution of 1911, while simultaneously laying the general foundations of our modern Representative Democracy. Historical reality itself clearly demonstrates that, if we must distinguish between the important innovations that the Constitution of 1911 established normatively - always at the initiative of Eleftherios Venizelos - within the framework of the Rule of Law, the emblematic position of the institution of the Council of State is its source of inspiration, the Conseil d'État in France as it gradually evolved there, especially towards the end of the 19^th century. It is useful to point out at this point that although the Council of State in Greece pre-existed in terms of regulation the Constitution of 1911, it was the initiative of Eleftherios Venizelos which gave it, through this Constitution and its subsequent executive legislation, its modern institutional status as the Supreme Administrative Court, in the future the head of Administrative Justice.

A. The history of the institution of the Council of State in Greece is long and goes back, in essence, to the beginnings of the Modern Greek State. In parallel, the evolution of the institution of the Council of State since the beginning of the 20^th century is fully intertwined with its most important judicial competence since then, namely with the competence to adjudicate the emblematic, in the field of Administrative Justice, legal remedy of the application for annulment as a sanctioning mechanism in case of violation of the Principle of Legality. It should be noted that the institutionalization of the legal remedy of the application for annulment in Greece and, consequently, its entry into the Greek Legal Order took place at the initiative of the constitutional legislator, and specifically through the provisions of article 82 par. 1 par. c of the Constitution of 1911, according to which: "E.is tthe Council oforς Estatehood ἀNikousin iby a) …, b) …, c) Or according toeventhis ἀratification bya violation of the lawIn acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn cata τa εisecondly ἐof the lawsῳ therooted ». However, this date does not seem to be of such significant interest for the whole history and, specifically, for the establishment of the institution of the annulment application within the Council of State, as one could attribute to it prima faciae. This is due to the fact that on the one hand the commencement of operation of this institution came with a significant delay, since the first relevant public meeting of the Council of State as a judicial body took place on 17^η May 1929. And, on the other hand, the prehistory of the request for annulment in the Greek Legal Order - and certainly the beginnings of judicial control of administrative action by special courts, the administrative ones, and with special legal remedies and means - is placed in time already shortly before the middle of the 19^th century. In fact, the history of Administrative Justice in the Modern Greek State begins with the establishment of the Council of State and the first "first-in-command" and "second-in-command" administrative courts. The original text that provided for the institution of the Council of State was the decree of 3/15 April 1833 (article 15) "AboutI division theῦ Vasiliou Ms.I τor"as his administration", as issued by the Regency and which, on the one hand, regulated the administrative division of the Kingdom (into 10 prefectures and 42 provinces). And, on the other hand, determined their method of administration.

B. The institution of the Council of State was abolished during the reign of Otto, given that article 102 of the Constitution of 1844 provided: "Tthe Council oforς Epiracy ceases, andI dissolves aὐrightly, abut the past is very῿s mornes, ἀφ Yesς orday themoses the king of theῦ Constitution therock, or MsI prIn tIn threeInot toIn, an pthe τorAt the end of these meetings,ῇ or first Parliamentor Session"This abolition was accompanied by the simultaneous abolition of the administrative courts, since article 101 of this Constitution stipulated: "Ta ἀcurrent administrationa courts abolishedῦthey arein δὑ ἀfrozenias aὐτa approxI ἀdisputed administrativeῦ ἀpotions ἀare being put ἀπthe τorς ἐpublishing itῦ of this Constitutionis torto be regularorthe jurisdiction ofIn courts, etc.I they want to be tried asas a matter of urgency. Laws iother, ἐgiven away ἐdthes torFirst ParliamentorDuring the Period, they want ἀfreezes ἐtoo thepeople ofaas othersas itῦ ἀdisputed administrativeῦ ἀpotionsis ta tacticala courts etc.I arrange theor"the process". However, it is true that the article itself indirectly left an exceptional way out of creating administrative courts, when it subsequently provided that "evenὑthe court, no jurisdiction overῦ ἀdisputed administrativeῦ δὑν orcan῿ νa ἀparkῃ This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ so onῦ a"new law". Ultimately, the aforementioned abolition of the Council of State and the then administrative courts also caused the premature cessation of efforts to create a relatively comprehensive system of Administrative Justice at the beginning of the course of the Modern Greek State. After the Constitution of 1844, major regressions were noted in terms of the organization and operation of the Council of State and Administrative Justice in general in Greece. And in particular both under the regime of the Constitution of 1864 and under the regime of the Constitution of 1911, at least until 1927.

I. The initiative of Eleftherios Venizelos for the constitutional enshrinement of the Council of State as the highest judicial body

    The re-establishment, after its abolition under the regime of the 1864 Constitution, of the Council of State with the provisions of the 1911 Constitution, in the form of an organ that was limited to exercising judicial (decision-making) and legislative (advisory) powers, must be attributed to two sets of causes. The first of these is related to the gradual weakening of memories of the monarchical period of Otto's reign and, consequently, to the reduction of distrust towards the monarchical Council of State. The simultaneous awareness of the anomalies caused in the functioning of Greek public life by the lack of an institution, the recognition of the usefulness of which was demonstrated daily and at an international level, especially through its spread in the European area, can also be classified in the same series of causes. The second set of reasons goes back to the unyielding intention of Eleftherios Venizelos to secure, by all means, the organization and operation of a modern State of Law and to his belief that such a state presupposes the existence of a Supreme Administrative Court, with broad annulment jurisdiction.

A. The preparatory work for the adoption of the 1911 Constitution regarding the Council of State

 Characteristic of this intention and conviction of Eleftherios Venizelos is the following excerpt from his speech as Prime Minister, at the meeting of the 30th^ς April 1911 of the Second Revisionist Parliament: "Zito"ῦalthougha This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ institutionῦ thereof thehow is itthe rule of law, theorthe state ofῦ of law, we will establish TheIndeed, limiting theorν ἀcrossing theIν theorgans, theaas aὐof the nobilityIν ἀcoming... Ewe are founding a new one ἀfirst, seconda τorς thewhose powersa ἐwe will drink thewhat or State of theῦ Law, thethe Rule of law, theWhat is it called, I?a ἀpovῇ by orμ῿really like this... Acceptorthenthen institutionthen itῦhim, thep῿that persontheν ἀsends or constitutionalor ἐplease, put ἀπὑr ttheν ἀpurgatorytheν Thenoorν ἀrcorn itῦ Council oforς Estatehood, ἀlola τthethe law, beforethes ttheν thep῿being theowesὗof the na conformIyesI νa ἀis being watered..., because the law musta εἶYes ἀsenior passIn of ἀrcIn, ἀsenior ladyI This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ ἀslushῦ MsI This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ King ἀCount... AskI, aiThis makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦYes, please.I τorn Bullorν thehow to votea athe articlesῦthe…”(Journal of the debates of the House, 1912nd Revisionary House, volume I, part 1952, XNUMX, pp. XNUMX ff.)

1. The constitutional enshrining of the institution of the Council of State and the consequent enshrining of its annulment jurisdiction was all the more necessary, as the civil courts did not attempt, except in those cases where there was an explicit legislative provision, to proceed with the annulment of illegal administrative acts that had been challenged before them. As F. Vegleris had argued (in «Or administrativeor justice ἀπthe τthe Constitution", Athens, 1960, p. 74), "Ms.I or ἐhomebody῿oh ἐtaught thewhat or elack of administrationIn courts, ἀdI νa ἀfullῦtimeὑ τorn eὐfurther jurisdiction ofIto be regularIn courts, means eis torn pasour full elack of justiceorof protection ἐπI ἀof a circle of topics andI ἀabsorption of eias aὐtheorto judge theIadministrativeIν the"organs". Thus, after the revolution of August 1909, it was decided to convene a National Assembly with the aim of revising the non-fundamental provisions of the Constitution of 1864. It should be noted that Eleftherios Venizelos, as Prime Minister, was the one who, with excessive political prudence, and contrary to the generalized popular demand for a Constituent Assembly, imposed the dissolution of the Revisionist Parliament.
2. The draft revision submitted to Parliament, in accordance with article 107 of the then-current Constitution, included paragraph 24^η, according to "ta aArticles 83-86, 101 etc.I 108 are judged ἀto be consideredI εἶyes, it worksors eis ta public interests or ἐCouncil actionorς Estatehoodtheas a constructionorn MsI they sufferedIn bills andI ἐfinalIn decrees andI prtheς ἐtrial ofIν ἀpotionsῦ ἀdisputed administrative"ῦ". The double revisionist Parliament, which resulted from the elections of 8 August 1910, met only a few times. A committee of deputies of that Parliament, consisting of K. Vassiliou, P. Karapanos, K. Raktivan, I. Rallis and D. Tsatsos, drew up a draft of revisionist provisions, which was published on 25^η  December 1910. In this draft, articles 83-86 concerned the institution of the Council of State. Of particular interest was article 83, which defined: "It is established as a Council oforς Estatehood aDr.ῦbeing ἐν AYou are welcome, Ms.I eorgan ehon: a) Torn preparationorn MsI they sufferedIn bills andI τIlegislativeIn MsI ἐfinalIn decrees. b) Torν ἐlitigationIν ἀdisputed administrativeῦ. c) Torν athe end of theorς ἀdisciplinary officerorof jurisdiction ἐπI τIadministrativeIν ἀemployeesa τaς idieter aboutI provisions of thisIν ἐ"given laws"The above-mentioned revisionary work was finally completed by the new double revisionary Parliament, which emerged from the elections of 18^th November 1910, and the draft of the revised provisions was submitted to the Parliament by the Government of Eleftherios Venizelos. This draft, amended by a special drafting committee, formed the basis of the discussions, which resulted in the adoption of the Constitution of 1^th June 1911. With this Constitution, as already noted, the first step towards the complete constitutional enshrinement of the Council of State and the institution of the annulment application was taken, as a legal remedy that allowed the mechanism of the annulment jurisdiction of the Council of State against illegal executive acts and omissions of the administrative authorities to be put into operation. That is, the mechanism to guarantee the application of the Principle of Legality and, by extension, the Rule of Law itself.

B. The provisions of the 1911 Constitution on the Council of State

The 1911 Constitution contained relatively extensive regulations regarding the Council of State. Specifically, article 82 stipulated: "E.is tthe Council oforς Estatehood ἀthey are born iby: a) Or ἐprocessing ofIn proposals for laws andI τIn regulatoryIn decrees, b) or ἐtrial ofIν ἀπthe This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ law ἀsent by aὐτῷ differentIν ἀdisputed administrativeῦ, c) or according toeventhis ἀratification bya violation of the lawIn acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn cata τa εisecondly ἐn tῷ lawῳ therooted, d) or ἀlater disciplinaryor jurisdiction ἐπI τIν ἀthose who fight for permanence ἀemployees oforas an administration, according toa This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.youaboutI "this laws"From the content of the above provisions, the following conclusions arise, among others:

1. The use of the expression «ἀNikousin i"two" It seems that the enumeration of the powers of the Council of State through the provisions of Article 82 was indicative. This meant that the law could, provided that it did not conflict with other constitutional provisions, assign other powers, advisory or decisive, to the Council of State. In addition, the Constitution institutionalized the advisory intervention of the Council of State not only in the field of processing regulatory decrees but also in the field of preparing draft laws.
2. The wording of article 82 par. 1, sub-paragraph c, according to which the Council of State also «or according toeventhis ἀratification bya violation of the lawIn acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn cata τa εisecondly ἐn tῷ lawῳ therooted », was absolute. Indeed, by using the definite article "tIn" It follows that the Constitution of 1911 guaranteed the possibility of filing an application for annulment against any unlawful executive act or omission issued by an administrative authority. Of course, the aforementioned constitutional provision expressly referred to the law for its specification, but this could only concern the determination of the procedural details of the filing of the legal remedy of the application for annulment and its adjudication by the Council of State. Therefore, it was not in a position to affect the substance and the scope of its constitutional foundation.

II. The application of the 1911 Constitution to the Council of State

 Despite the absolute and categorical wording adopted by these provisions, their first implementing law, namely Law 290/1914 "about"I Council oforς E"statehood" , established a series of significant restrictions concerning the possibility of exercising the legal remedy of the annulment application before the Council of State and, consequently, the scope of its annulment jurisdiction.

A. The regulatory regime of executive law 290/1914

The aforementioned restrictions were not limited, as would be natural, exclusively to the more specific determination of the conditions for the admissibility of the application for annulment and to the details of the scope and manner of conducting the annulment review. On the contrary, in some cases they touched upon and affected the very subject matter of the legal remedy.

1. Specifically, Law 290/1914:

a) It stipulated that the remedy of annulment could only be brought against enforceable acts and omissions of administrative authorities and legal entities exercising administration. In this way, it excluded from the scope of the Council of State’s annulment jurisdiction administrative acts and omissions that were not enforceable.

b) It established the exception, according to which it was not possible to challenge them with a request for annulment before the Council of State. "ain government actions etc.I orders, ain ἀare being brought to youis torto manage theoras a politicianorς ἐ"power", that is, the actions of the government in today's terminology.

c) It established, as one of the special conditions of admissibility which concern the nature of the contested act, the absence of a parallel appeal. Specifically, article 48 of the law "about"I Council oforς E"statehood" stipulated that: «Or αeventhis ἀratification bya violation of the country's law῿ only bya τIν ἐcompletedIn acts, tIn mor ἀof whichiς onemore elegal means bya τoras an administratororς or judicialorς thedoῦ. Yeslike thisῦthe thebut elegal meansὑto consider῿tai or aplsor αeventhis treatment for ἀshipaas beforethes torthe boss ἀbeginning, ἐφ' theson dὑν ἀdone῿ part oforas relevantoras an administratororas a process, theὔt or ἀgogor approxI ἀcompensation fora This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ ἀpossessor ἀpallilou, ἐpossibly dὑ MsI This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ Public, asas co-responsible, or remaining ἐν ipower oforadministrativeorn pasour.

2. The adoption of these restrictions, which also appeared in the form of establishing certain conditions for the admissibility of the annulment application – conditions which continue to characterize even today, in general terms, the regime of the procedural scope of this legal remedy – does not seem to have created any particular problems in the legal circles of the time, especially with regard to the issue of their agreement with the letter and spirit of the provisions of article 82 of the Constitution.

a) The reasons for the unhesitating and difficult establishment of the aforementioned restrictions despite the absolute and categorical formulation of the relevant constitutional requirement should rather be sought in the direction of the historical origin of the institution of the legal remedy of the application for annulment. In particular, this institution was born and developed, as is known, in France. Both its formation and the restrictions, which have always defined and define the outline of its operation, were the result of a gradual development of the case law of the Conseil d'État. The Greek legislator, both constitutional and common, adopted the institution of the application for annulment basically as it had been established and was in force in France at the beginning of the 20^the century. The view was therefore universally accepted, according to which this transplantation of the legal remedy of the annulment application into the Greek Legal Order had to be based on the set of rules that made up the French regulation relating to this legal remedy. Based on this argument, it was considered natural to establish and apply in the Greek Legal Order not only the rules that concerned the organization and operation of the annulment application. But also the rules that established certain restrictions on its exercise.

b) Particularly revealing of the truth of the above argument is the testimony of Eleftherios Venizelos: Addressing the Parliament, in one of the meetings that preceded the adoption of the final text of the 1911 Constitution, the then Prime Minister had emphasized: "I'm doing aὐτorn tor clearor statement thewhat is itthe areturn itῦit, formulatedὑν ἐπI τῇ based onIν ἐn Galliᾳ holding, ehiit is bornis torthe legislation orμIn. Ewe are drinking d' thewhat is itthe ΣIbut theῦthe will ἀfollow the ἐn Galliᾳ stateῦyes, ἐto ewe have theI'm sorry.orν ἐn Galliᾳ ἐπI this jurisprudence, asς thetellthen brighttheν ἐπI τIn taken into account ἀdecisions ἀπthe This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ Council of this"This view of Eleftherios Venizelos was accepted but also further developed and substantiated by the theory. Thus, N. N. Saripolos noted: «The institution oforς ἀπthe This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ Council oforς Estatehood according toeventhis ἀratification…..was bornI ἀdeveloped ἐn Galliᾳ. Cata imitation d' iby the wayIν ἐn Galliᾳ holdings was compiledthe aarticle 82 ed. thirdῦ or"Meter of the Constitution"But N. Kolyvas had also accepted that "ain provisions herethat's itῦ orby law ἐwere created according toa imitation ofIν ἐn Galliᾳ, thewhich is the θὑsmthes toras an appealorς ἐin front of itῦ Council oforς Estatehoodtheς ἀratification ofIof illegal actsIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn, alleged ἀπthe τthe Thename itῦ “Recourse to excès of power, deep ehas ta"root".

c) The organic law on the Council of State 290/1914 was never implemented. This is due to the fact that the last article 52 of this law stipulated that the time of its entry into force and the terms of its execution had to be determined by royal decree. However, the events that followed prevented the issuance of this decree. Once again, the institution of the Council of State and the legal remedy of the annulment application could not be definitively incorporated into the Greek Legal Order.

B. The final consolidation of the constitutional enshrining of the institution of the Council of State

The definitive entry and establishment of the Council of State in the field of the institutions of the Judiciary in Greece and the commencement of its operation, in the form that largely appears today, took place within the framework of the constitutional order established by the Constitution of 3^th June 1927, of course as a continuation of the letter and spirit of the corresponding and aforementioned provisions of the Constitution of 1911.

1. It should be emphasized at this point that the "stillborn" The Constitution of 1925/1926 contained provisions on administrative justice (articles 99-102). Specifically, provisions concerning both the institution of the Council of State and the legal remedy of the annulment application. The Constitution published by the dictator Pangalos on September 29, 1925 and which reflected, with several amendments of course, the general outlines of the text which had been drafted by the 30-member constitutional committee under the chairmanship of A. Papanastasiou, contained a provision (article 99 par. 1) according to which: "E.is tthe Council oforς Estatehood ἀbelongs to: a) Or ἐtrial ofIn cata This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.youas laws ἀsent byias aὐτthe differentIν ἀdisputed administrativeῦ. b) Or according toeventhis ἀratification of acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIto surpass ἐpower or cata violation ofIn laws, according toa τa εisecondlya law therooted. c) Or ἀlater disciplinaryor jurisdiction ἐπI τIν ἀthose who fight for permanence ἀemployees oforas an administrationa This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.youaboutI "this laws"The same provision was repeated in the Constitution of 1926, which was none other than the above text that came from the work of the Papanastasiou committee and that was published, after the overthrow of the Pangalos dictatorship, by the Kondylis Government, on 22^α  September 1926.
2. For the completeness of the analysis, it is noted that the provisions of the "Council of State and application for annulment"stillborn» Constitution of 1925/1926 differed from the corresponding provisions of the 1911 Constitution - that is, in particular from the provisions of article 82, paragraph 1 - mainly in the following two basic points:

a) The enumeration of the powers of the Council of State in the 1925/1926 Constitution does not appear to have been indicative, as was the case with the provisions of the 1911 Constitution, since the word "council of state" was not included in the relevant paragraph. «i"two".

b) The lack of the definite article "tIn", in the section of the Constitution of 1925/1926 which concerned the constitutional enshrining of the legal remedy of the annulment application, undoubtedly reduced the clarity and security created by its use by the corresponding provision of the Constitution of 1911. It will be noted below that the tactic of removing this definitive article was also followed in the Constitutions of 1927 and 1952. And this not only because the Constitution of 1927 contained special provisions on the Council of State and administrative courts, but also because under its regime the organic law was issued, based on the provisions of articles 102, 103 and 104, 105, 120, and came into force. "about"I Council oforς E"statehood" Law 3713, which was passed by Parliament on 22^α December 1928.

3. The organization and jurisdiction of the Council of State within the framework of the 1927 Constitution were regulated by the provisions of articles 102-105, always inspired by the corresponding provisions of the 1911 Constitution and, of course, the corresponding ideas of Eleftherios Venizelos.

a) According to the provisions of article 120 of this Constitution, the formation of the Council of State had to take place no later than one year from the date of its entry into force, that is, by 3^η June 1928. However, this deadline was not met, since law 3713/1928 was published in the Government Gazette only on the 24th.^η December 1928. It should also be clarified that the entry into force of this law was carried out gradually. In fact, and in accordance with the provisions of article 55 of law 3713/1928, articles 1-25 entered into force ten days after its publication. Articles 46-49 par. a' and b' and article 51 entered into force on 26^η February 1929. Finally, the entry into force of the remaining articles took place on 25^η under the conditions that were in effect before Article 1929 of Law XNUMX/XNUMX. In such cases, if the property purchase is not completed, the buyer can finalize their investment in another property, always under the conditions in force from the enactment of this law, but no later than April XNUMX.

b) The annulment jurisdiction of the Council of State and, consequently, the constitutional enshrining of the legal remedy of the annulment application was determined by article 102, paragraph 1, of the 1927 Constitution, the provisions of which stipulated: "E.is tthe Council oforς Estatehood ἀNikousin iby: a) Or ἐprocessing ofIn regulatoryIn decrees, b) or ἐtrial ofIn cata This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.youas laws ἀsent byias aὐτthe differentIν ἀdisputed administrativeῦ, c) or according toeventhis ἀratification of acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn by ἀcrossing ἐpower or cata violation of the law, according toa τa εisecondlya law therooted..

c) This last reference by the legislator, regarding the regulation of the details of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Council of State, enabled the drafter of Law 3713/1928 to also specify the exercise and adjudication of the main legal remedy in the field of administrative jurisdiction, namely the application for annulment. In particular, Articles 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Law 3713/1928 determined, on the one hand, the conditions for the admissibility of the application for annulment and, on the other hand, the reasons for which it was possible to request the annulment of an administrative act or omission by the Council of State. Regarding the specific conditions for the admissibility of the legal remedy of the annulment application, Law 3713/1928 determined, in addition to the need for the existence of a legitimate interest and the obligation to comply with a certain deadline, the following: "Article 46, paragraph 1: Or αeventhis ἀratification by ἀcrossing ἐpower or violation of the country's law῿ only bya τIν ἐcompletedIn acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn MsI τIto administer ἀlegal adviceIn persons, theIn mor ἀof whichiς oneterthewhat elegal means bya τoras an administratororς or judicialorς thedoῦ. ". "Article 46, paragraph 3: Eokayῦthey are ἐalso ain governmentI actions andI I orderedI αin ἀare being brought to youis torto manage theoras a politicianorς ἐ"of power.".

d)  These restrictions, which concerned the possibility of appealing before the Council of State and putting into effect the mechanism of its annulment jurisdiction, with the procedural assistance of the legal remedy of the annulment application, also do not seem to have given the case law and theory any particular thought as to their constitutionality.

d1) The justification of the above attitude is easier in the context of the provisions of the 1927 Constitution than it was under the regime of the corresponding provisions of the 1911 Constitution, as already noted. Specifically, the acceptance of the view, according to which the restrictions did not violate, in principle, the letter and spirit of the Constitution, was no longer based solely on the fact that, on the one hand, the institution of the application for annulment had been introduced into the Greek Legal Order in imitation of the relevant French institution and, consequently, with the same restrictions on its application. And, on the other hand, that the Constitution left to the common legislator the responsibility of regulating the legal framework for the exercise and operation of this legal remedy.

d2) It could still find sufficient and solid support in the new wording adopted by the constitutional legislator in article 102, paragraph 1, subparagraph c. The provision «or according toeventhis ἀratification of acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn by ἀcrossing ἐpower or cata violation of the law, according toa τa εisecondlya law therooted » and in particular the removal, in relation to article 82 par. 1 sub-paragraph c of the 1911 Constitution, of the definitive article "tIn" could, in the final analysis, also be interpreted as a retreat of the constitutional legislator of 1927 from the corresponding positions of the previous Constitution. And it is obvious that nothing seems to have prevented case law and theory from accepting the view, according to which this new constitutional formulation also provided a significantly expanded scope of regulatory discretion to the common legislator. In the sense in particular that the law could proceed with greater freedom in determining the conditions of the procedural operation of the mechanism of the annulment jurisdiction of the Council of State and under a single, of course important, fundamental limitation: The legislative regulations could not result in the abolition or even in the excessive reduction of the possibility of filing an application for annulment against the enforceable acts and omissions of the administrative authorities. This is because such a thing would be, at least by presumption, contrary to the will of the constitutional legislator, whose intentions once again seem to have been primarily concerned with the securing of the effective functioning of the Rule of Law and, consequently, the effective implementation of the Principle of Legality.

3. The provisions of Law 3713/1928 set the number of judges of the Council of State at 35, namely 15 advisors, 10 members of the judiciary and 10 rapporteurs. According to the provisions of Article 7 of the aforementioned Law 3713/1928, the advisors held the highest rank in the civil service hierarchy and were for life. The election and appointment of the first advisors of the Council of State were made by the Council of Ministers and its first president was appointed, as a personal choice of Eleftherios Venizelos, the great jurist Konstantinos Raktivan, who also had a significant political career, while he was one of the founding members of the Academy of Athens. The first members of the Council of State were elected by its advisors, when the Court was now constituted as a body. Finally, the first rapporteurs of the Council of State were appointed after a high-level competition, in which 120 candidates had participated. The first rapporteur of the Council of State in the competition was Michael Stassinopoulos, who also became its President in 1966, only to be arbitrarily dismissed later after the historic decisions of this Court in favor of also arbitrarily dismissed judicial officers. With the necessary addition that Michael Stassinopoulos served, between 1974-1975, as the first interim President of the Third Hellenic Republic.

Epilogue

Despite the multiple and significant political upheavals that occurred after 1927 and up to the present day, the institution of the Council of State and the legal remedy of the annulment application have functioned, at least most of the time, rather normally, thus contributing, from their side, positively to the consolidation of the organization and operation of the Rule of Law and the Principle of Legality and highlighting, at the same time, the institutional insight of Eleftherios Venizelos. The experience of the past, which gradually began to take shape with the main development guideline of the case law of the Council of State and the corresponding theoretical research, has, over time, become a valuable advisor and guide for the changes that have taken place subsequently. The above-mentioned tendency to reform and adapt the institutions of the Council of State and the annulment petition to the new needs of the evolving Rule of Law was clearly erased by the efforts to formulate the constitutional regulations relating to these institutions in a clearer and more comprehensive manner. Such efforts can easily be brought to light by investigating the ferments that preceded the final formulation of the text that was eventually institutionalized as the 1952 Constitution.

A.  In the context of the Fourth Revisionary Parliament, which resulted from the elections of 31^th March 1946, the work of preparing the revision of the Constitution of 1864/1911 was undertaken, in accordance with its Second Resolution of the 12th^th June 1946, a special 40-member committee of deputies, under the chairmanship of D. Hadjiskos. This committee met for the first time on July 15, 1946 and worked for about two years - that is, until May 24, 1948 - after holding over two hundred meetings. The particularly interesting, from a theoretical and practical point of view, work of the committee is included in the publication «Eshorthand notesa τorς Epetroporς ἀreview theῦ Constitution" (Athens, 1948)  of the National Printing House. The same publication also includes the final draft of the Constitution, which the Hadjiskos Committee concluded. The aforementioned committee also dealt with the provisions concerning the organization and operation of Administrative Justice and, consequently, with the provisions concerning the legal remedy of the annulment application. The rapporteur on the revision of the provisions of articles 102-105 of the 1911 Constitution to the Hadjiskos Committee was Th. Tsatsos. It is interesting to briefly quote the views he expressed in his presentation, not only because they are of significant theoretical interest but also because they decisively influenced the committee's final draft of the Constitution, and in addition, they can constitute a model of clarity and a valuable interpretative reference even today. The rapporteur initially highlighted, once again, the roots of the institution of the annulment application: «Adoubtful or untilῦand most importantly,ῦ Council oforς Estatehood aresponsibility, asς ἐk torIt was demonstrated in practice,ἶYes or ἀratifying, shaping῿like a ladyI by orμ῿n based on theoras long asaMsI socialIas a jurisprudential scholar,ῦ Council of State»He then briefly presented the disadvantages of the constitutional provisions, which did not clearly delimit the scope of the Council of State's annulment jurisdiction: «Ek toras a formulation or according toeventhis ἀratification of acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn MsI οὐχI τIn acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn, that isor ἐk toras an omission,ῦ amorning, ehas been bornῇ hesitationtheaboutI τorν emeaning oforas a provision, yesto include ἀeveryone's needaas acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIν or maybe by chancetheν ἐleaves the εisecond definitionthes tIν ἀof whichiς ἀKyrotikorn insultorn acts ofis tthecommonthethe legislator. Therhthen eἶyes, yes ἀclarificationῇ thewhat about ἀrcorn payou ἐfinalor pratoras an administratorἶyes, acceptableor insultorfor aitension ἀ"of ratification."In order to avoid any doubt as to the exceptions that could be established by the common legislator, it was clarified: "Tha orstrong consequenceIs na addor or phrases mor ἐbeing loved,ὐdemiaς ἐof separation, ἀlola This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦthe t' ἀpovῇ ewhat is clearer fora appropriate wordingirightoras a device ἀwearing theaas acts of Government andI τorparallel appeal. Indeed,is torn oyouThe established order musta addῇ MsI or explicitlyor ἐknowledge ἀπthe This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ ἀKyrotikoῦ ἐcontrol a) tIn Government acts andI b) tIn acts of ohν ἀ"There is a parallel appeal."The previous thoughts were summarized, in the context of the work of the committee on the revision of the Constitution, by A. Vamvetsos, pointing out how useful they appeared. «or constitutional establishmentorς ἀrcorq, thewhat is itayou ἐcompletedor pratorAs an Administration, you musta ἀit goes withis torν ἀKyrotikorjurisdictionῦ Council oforς Eof state, Mrs.I νa just do it ἐknowledge ofIgovernmentIn, words, actions, etc.I τIn acts ἐthose, huhis taς thewhose ἀ"there is a parallel appeal".

B. The prevalence of the previous views led the Hadjiskos Committee to more clearly formulate the provisions of article 121, paragraph 1, subparagraph XNUMX of the "Draft Constitution of H"greed", according to which: "E.is tthe Council Estatehood ἀthey are born iby a) …, b) …, c) or according toeventhis for ἀcrossing ἐpower or violation of law ἀratification ofIν ἐcompletedIn acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIν ἐto be born, ἐonly shave theIn Government acts andI ἐof them, by aς ἀ"parallel appeal". The developments that occurred subsequently did not allow the Hadjiskos Committee's draft to be followed up. On the contrary, the developments were more favorable for the 114-article draft of the Bakopoulou Committee, which was recommended by Resolution 1911 and which was based on the text of the 1 Constitution. This draft also led to the definitive text of the Constitution of XNUMX^th January 1952. It should be emphasized, however, that while the provisions of the 1911 Constitution substantially influenced the final text of the 1952 Constitution, the same did not happen with the article concerning the institution of the Council of State, and in particular the application for annulment. This results from the fact that the wording, which was adopted by article 83 par. 1 of the 1952 Constitution, does not present the absoluteness of the provisions of article 82 par. 1 of the 1911 Constitution, much less the clarity and regulatory clarity of article 121 par. 1 of the draft drawn up by the Hadjiskos Committee. It is obvious that the regulation established by the drafters of the 1952 Constitution was closer to the corresponding regulation of article 102, paragraph 1, of the 1927 Constitution, since its content was as follows: «AArticle 83, paragraph 1: Eis tthe Council oforς Estatehood ἀNikousin iby: a) Or ἐprocessing ofIn regulatoryIn decrees. b) Or ἐtrial ofIn cata This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.youas laws ἀsent byias aὐτthe differentIν ἀdisputed administrativeῦ. c) Or according toeventhis ἀratification of acts ofIadministrativeIν ἀrcIn by ἀcrossing ἐpower or violation of the law, according toa τa εisecondlya law therooted. d) Or αeventhis ἀappeal by ἀcrossing ἐpower or violation of the law againstIn final judge ἀdecisions ofIto be regularIadministrativeI"of the courts.". The above formulation consequently allowed the continuation of the operation of the institution of the Council of State and the legal remedy of the application for annulment without any substantial change. In particular, the scope and the general organization of the annulment jurisdiction of the Council of State continued to be regulated by the provisions of Law 3713/1928, which had been issued under the regime of the Constitution of 1927. Only certain changes, which in fact facilitated the adaptation of the current legal regime to the developments of jurisprudence and the needs of Administrative Justice and which did not cause radical modifications to the entire economy of this regime, were brought about by the subsequent Legislative Decree 170/1973, "about"I This makes it a perfect choice for people with diabetes and for those who want to lose weight or follow a balanced diet.ῦ Council oforς E"statehood". The aforementioned regulations constituted the legal basis on which the annulment control of the faithful application of the Principle of Legality was based at the time when the current Constitution of 1975 came to provide a new institutional foundation for the Greek Legal Order in general, but also a new institutional foundation for the organization and operation of Administrative Justice, with the Council of State at its apex. Despite the passage of time, which now exceeds a century, the democratic institutional spirit of Eleftherios Venizelos continues to linger, evergreen, even in the modern procedural scope of the control, by the Council of State, of the faithful application of the Principle of Legality and, consequently, of the defense of the institutional pillars of the Rule of Law.