The Court of Appeal considered the decision of the Court of First Instance correct to reject a civil action by a private individual.
The Court of Appeal considered as absolutely correct the decision of the Court of First Instance to reject a civil action by a private individual, which was directed against the power of the Attorney General of the Republic to intervene and stop a criminal prosecution for reasons of public interest, without justification. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which was unanimous, was issued on January 12, 2023.
The lawsuit asked the Court to recognize that the decision of the Attorney General of the Republic to register a suspension in 2 private, criminal prosecutions in June 2016, it was, among other things, invalid, as the then General Prosecutor did not proceed with justification as to the reasons why the suspension of the specific criminal prosecutions was in the interest of the public interest.
The Court of Appeal, judging as correct the decision of the Court of First Instance to dismiss the action and characterizing the jurisprudence as crystallized in that it is not subject to judicial review the power of the Attorney General of the Republic to intervene and interrupt criminal proceedings when, at his discretion, is in the public interest, states that:
“[The Court of First Instance] … analyzed the power of the Attorney General of the Republic to intervene and interrupt criminal proceedings, explaining the obvious, based on the crystallized jurisprudence, that the Attorney General has unchecked power to initiate, conduct, seize, continue or discontinue any proceeding if, in its judgment, this is in the public interest. Any public interest is judged by the Attorney General himself, whose judgment is not subject to judicial review. For the purposes of Article 113 of the Constitution, the Attorney General himself is the judge of the public interest, with every such decision of his considered to be taken for the purpose of serving the public interest, without having to give any explanation for this.”
The Court of Appeal also held that there was no reason to differentiate the jurisprudence nor would it be proper to do so.
All claims of the plaintiff were rejected by the Court of Appeal, which awarded costs in favor of the Republic.
On behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic, the case was handled by Ms. Marianna Tsagari, Lawyer of the Republic A'.
