16.9 C
Nicosia
Friday, March 29, 2024

Decision of the Supreme Court on the “war” Savvidis – Parliament

Must read

Decision of the Supreme Court on the

philenews

The Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the Parliament to review the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General regarding the management of the conclusion of the Nikolatos Committee was unconstitutional, invalid from the existing one and without any absolutely legal effect.

According to a statement by the Prosecutor's Office, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled today the decision of the Plenary Session of the House of Representatives, dated April 22, 2021, to call:

1. 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 17 August 2020,

2. 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, the final finding, and

3. 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, the announcement adds, 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 ruled that:

1. 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.

2. The preliminary objection of the House of Representatives that the contested decision was a resolution of a purely political content 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.

3. As having legal force and intended to impose legal obligations , the present decision violates the constitutionally enshrined powers of the Advocate 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. “

This is the unanimous Opinion of the Supreme Court

https://twitter.com/SavvidesGL/status/1485559521711951875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [/ embed]

It is recalled that on April 22, by a majority, the Plenary Session of the Parliament approved a draft decision of AKEL, DIKO, Ecologists and Solidarity, requesting that the Attorney General and the Attorney General be excluded from the evaluation of the interim conclusion of the Investigative Committee. , because of the incompatibility they claim exists against them, because they had been government ministers at the time he made the naturalization decisions.

Subsequently, the Attorney General, George Savvidis, requested the annulment of the decision of the Parliament in relation to the naturalizations and the interim conclusion, by appealing to the Supreme Court, characterizing it, among other things, as offensive.

Specifically, the appeal was registered on April 28 and according to the information that “F” had, it calls on the Court to annul the decision of the Parliament and to make it without legal effect, as, as Mr. Savvidis argued, it conflicts with the Constitution, the Principle of Discrimination of Powers, the law on Research Committees, as well as European Law.

Source: www.philenews.com

- Advertisement -AliExpress WW

More articles

- Advertisement -AliExpress WW

Latest article