By Nikos Varlas/ firstname.lastname@example.org
The text is the following: “After today’s decision the council confirmed the recent statements of former president D.Giannakopoulos about an “olympiacos favoring system” in the pure world of Greek basketball.
Without any new evidence or any new legal statement, based on the same bylaws and rules, the second departement of the council decided to overule the previous verdict by the third departement of the same court, without taking into account for the first time ever the first verdict.
It’s obvious that 55 days were enough in order for the second departement of the council to be persuaded that Panathinaikos was a victim of mistrial by the third departement of the same court.
Every one can make his own assumptions”.
Olympiacos BC, issued a second statement, on Sunday afternoon, on the issue of ASEAD´s decision and suggests that this issue is not over.
In response of inaccurate publications and misrepresentation, Olympiacos BC makes the following statement
At first No.101 / 19.12.2014 irrevocable decision, the Third Department of ASEAD vindicated Olympiacos and considered with res judicata as follows:
• That the EOK applies to professional teams of Greek basketball league.
• That the Athletic Judge of ESAKE ought to hear the complaint of Olympiacos according to rules of EOK and impose Panathinaikos to lose a game under Article 88 par. 3 of EOK rules.
It is worth noting that third section of ASEAD fully rejected the additional intervention brought Panathinaikos and all the arguments put forward by it.
First decision was not challenged by Panathinaikos and thus became final.
Of course, that did not happen, as Section B of the same Court overturned the precedent of the first final judgment (!), Without even going through absolutely no new evidence or new argument on the side of Panathinaikos.
Finally, it should be noted that the judgment of this, the Second Department looked at implementing Article 2 of the Criminal Code and the assertion of Panathinaikos on the retroactivity of a more lenient law, a plea which was rejected irrevocably and res judicata first decision C. section of the same court (!).