The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the decision of the House of Representatives, to check the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General, in relation to the issue of golden passports, following the conclusion of the Nicolatos Committee. The news was made public by the Attorney General, George Savvidis, in a post on Twitter:
The decision of the Parliament to check the Attorney General & Assistant Attorney General regarding the management of the conclusion of the Nikolatos Committee was considered unanimous by the Supreme Court, unanimously invalid & without any absolutely legal effect. pic.twitter.com/VphrZkkF7t
– George L. Savvides (@SavvidesGL) January 24, 2022
The said decision of the Parliament was related to the fact that George Savvidis and Savvas Angelidis had been members of the Council of Ministers, during the period concerned by the control of the Nikolatos Committee, in relation to the golden passports.
According to the announcement of the Legal Service, “unconstitutional, externally invalid and without any absolutely legal effect, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled today the decision of the Plenary Session of the House of Representatives, dated 22 April 2021, to convene:
- The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General to proceed immediately (ie, as such and without any processing) to make public the interim finding of the Investigative Committee on the exceptional naturalization of foreign investors and entrepreneurs from 2007 to August 17, 2020.
- The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General as they abstain from the process of assessing any criminal, disciplinary and administrative responsibilities arising from the interim finding and, consequently, from the final finding, and
- The Supreme Court to function ex officio “according to the constitutional procedure” (ie, for their termination) in case of non-compliance with the decision of the House of Representatives.
It is noted that the House of Representatives published this decision in the Official Gazette of the Republic, without following the constitutional procedures and without sending it to the President of the Republic before its publication.
Against the decision of the House of Representatives and its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic, the Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court on May 14, 2021, which today unanimously stated that:
- The preliminary objection of the House of Representatives that the Attorney General was not entitled to file an appeal and / or that it was abusive was unfounded.
- The House of Representatives's preliminary objection that the contested decision was a resolution of a purely political nature was incorrect. In this regard, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the House of Representatives was intended “to generate rights and obligations, a goal that took shape, but also covered the mantle of legal force, through its publication” in the Official Gazette of the Republic, although publication was made in a constitutional diversion, ie without the involvement of the President of the Republic.
- As having legal force and intended to impose legal obligations, the present decision violates the constitutionally enshrined powers of the Attorney General, interferes with his exclusive powers and affects the uncontrollability of his power, which is enshrined in Articles 112-114 of the Constitution.
Consequently, as the Supreme Court concludes, “the decision of the Parliament that is the subject of the appeal is declared invalid from the beginning and without any absolutely legal effect. It is also canceled in its entirety. “
Appeal Decision 4 21_240122
