The Attorney General, Mr. Giorgos Savvidis, even accuses the Auditor General of practicing illegal law in the text of the petition he submitted to the Supreme Constitutional Court, requesting the suspension of Odysseus Michaelidis.
Specifically, the General Attorney, referring to interventions by the Auditor General, accuses him of “practicing illegal law and providing legal opinionswhich in fact have the effect of obstructing the proper functioning of the state”. He also accuses the Auditor General of making accusations against him which are baseless, baseless and morally reprehensible. He also claims that “the kat’ the Auditor General's continued challenge to the Attorney General's opinions and his direct and indirect comments tend to abuse and influence him in the performance of his duties, which include, among other things, the power to discontinue criminal prosecutions…”.
Also refers to unsupported, untrue, unacceptable, baseless accusations of the Auditor General constitute uncritical and improper conduct. It also claims that “obstructing the exercise of the work of statutory committees and/or authorities constitutes inappropriate behavior. It also cites “continued disrespect for constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights”.
Self-promotion as a defender of the public interest
He attributes various actions of the Auditor General to self-promotion, recording that: “The fact that the Auditor General self-promotes and presents himself in Cypriot society as the only defender of the public interest and defender of the laws, and generally likes self-promotion, through his daily and continuous publications on social media and the mass media, lead to the conclusion that the Auditor General does not have the public interest at heart, but rather pursues his own reputation and self-promotion in an improper manner.' It further claims by implication that “the content of the statements of letters, interventions of the Auditor General is unrestrained, rampant and abusive and that his behavior carries serious risks of bringing the offices and institutions into disrepute”.
Furthermore, it attributes to him ” lack of respect for the opinions and decisions of the Attorney General with his baseless and morally objectionable claims, affects the objectivity of the Reports and positions of the Auditor General”.
Mr. Savvidis refers to an (online) confrontation between Odysseus Michaelides and the citizens which constitutes behavior that is not compatible with the position of the Auditor General. It constitutes inappropriate behavior which de’ himself justifies his dismissal. It also dismisses him for “offensive, derogatory and indecent language that he uses in public and his style, constitutes behavior that is not compatible with the highest position of the Office he serves and the projection on his part of baseless, unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations constitutes inappropriate behavior”.
“For all the above reasons the Applicant” (Attorney General) in the chapter of the application under the heading “TERMINATION”, “requires the issuance of the requested decisions as his Application”. That is, the suspension of the Auditor General:
More specifically, in the specific chapter (END) the following are recorded:
149. The Applicant alleges:
(a) that the Auditor General is dismissed for the same reasons and in the same manner as Judges of the Supreme Court are dismissed (see Article 115 of the Constitution).
(b) That the ethics and the expected of the Auditor General's behavior is that which is expected according to ratio by the Judges of the Supreme Court and is not limited to the performance of his duties but also includes his behavior in general (see Erotokritos decision above).
(c) The Petitioner (General Prosecutor) refers to the decision of Erotokritos above and the ECtHR decision in Erotocritou above and claims that:
i. The role of the Attorney General of the Republic under Article 113 of the Constitution is his contribution to the proper administration of Justice.
ii. Criminal prosecutions are part of the judicial apparatus in the broadest sense of the term and the public interest requires that, like the Judicial Officers, the Attorney General must enjoy the confidence of the public. Therefore the State must protect him from accusations which are baseless, baseless and morally reprehensible.
iii. The assertions of the Auditor General in relation to the opinions of the Attorney General to the Ministers and to other state bodies and to the state in general, in connection with the fact of wide publicity are without doubt prejudicial and harmful to the Attorney General. The cat’ continued challenge by the Auditor General to the opinions of the Attorney General and his direct and indirect comments, tend to abuse and influence him in the performance of his duties, which include, inter alia, power to discontinue criminal prosecutions in the Public Interest consequently undermining public confidence in the State's top Legal Officer. Since the State is under an obligation to protect the Attorney General from baseless, unfounded and morally objectionable attacks and accusations, the dismissal of the Auditor General is not disproportionate to the intended objective.
iv. The offensive and abusive language and style of the Auditor General's letters constitutes misconduct.
n. The unsupported, untrue, unacceptable, baseless and morally objectionable accusations of the Auditor General constitute irresponsible and improper conduct.
vi. Obstructing the exercise of the work of statutory committees and/or authorities, constitute improper conduct.
vii. Continued disrespect for constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights, constitute improper conduct.
viii. The fact that the Auditor General promotes himself and presents himself in Cypriot society as the only defender of the public interest and defender of the laws, and generally likes to promote himself, through his daily and continuous publications on social media and in the mass media, lead to the conclusion that the Auditor General does not have the public interest at heart, but pursues his own reputation and self-promotion in an improper manner.
ix. The illegal practice of law and the provision of legal opinions which in fact have the effect of obstructing the proper functioning of the state constitute improper conduct.
150. It is the Petitioner's contention that since the Auditor General is dismissed for the same reasons and in the same manner as Judges of the Supreme Court, his entire conduct is judged and according to analogy from the Guide to Judicial Conduct and/or the spirit of the Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, UNODC, September 2007. It is submitted that the Guide to Judicial Conduct does not provide restrictive provisions but is a guide of basic principles to assist Judges in arriving at their own decisions as to whether a particular activity or conduct, not only in the performance of their duties but also in general, is the appropriate or not.
Based on the Code of Ethics
151. Furthermore, it is the Claimant's claim that the behavior of the Auditor General is judged in the context of both the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of the Audit Service of the Republic as well as the Code of Ethics (ISSAI 130) of INTOSAI and/or by a government official, despite the fact that the Code in question, as well as the other INTOSAI Guidelines and/or Directives and/or Codes, is not legally binding under the Law of the Republic of Cyprus.
152 . The entire conduct of the Auditor General as described in the events mentioned above is in complete contradiction to the above. Codes of Ethics and Conduct.
153. The Petitioner additionally claims that the term misconduct is not limited to the performance of an official's duties, but is broader and includes his conduct in general.
154. Petitioner relies on Lawrence above and alleges that:
i The content of the statements of letters, interventions of the Auditor General should not be unrestrained, unbridled and abusive because this behavior carries serious risks of bringing the offices and institutions into disrepute.
ii. The Auditor General must perform his duties in a calm, impartial and objective manner.
The importance of the roles of the Attorney General and the Auditor General makes it highly desirable in the interest of good governance that the holders of these positions have due respect for one another. The lack of respect for the opinions and decisions of the Attorney General with his baseless and morally objectionable allegations, also affects the objectivity of the Reports and positions of the Auditor General.
iv. The unconfirmed and unsubstantiated positions of the Auditor General constitute misconduct.
155. The Applicant invokes the Chief of Justice of Gibraltar above and alleges that:
i. The Auditor General must ensure that his conduct both during his official duties and outside of duty must preserve and enhance the required prestige of the institutions.
ii. The Auditor General must not use indecent language and behave indecently in his activities.
iii. He has the right to freedom of speech, but he must behave in a way that must protect the dignity of his position while respecting the reputation of others.
iv. The Auditor General must not allow his family to improperly influence the performance of his duties and his judgment.
n. The Auditor General as an individual who is under constant public scrutiny must accept personal limitations which may be considered burdensome to the ordinary citizen and must behave in a manner compatible with the dignity of his position.
vi. The rules of conduct require that the Auditor General conduct himself in an irreproachable manner. Must be an example of impartiality, independence and integrity. What is required of the Auditor General, who according to the Constitution is a permanent civil servant, is something much higher than what is required of a simple civil servant.
He is accused of attempting to distort the image of the institutions in the eyes of citizens
156. The Applicant claims that:
i. The exercise of state power on the basis of the opinion of the Attorney General renders the charge of corruption against the state officials who acted on it baseless and unsupported.
ii. The exercise of the Attorney General's powers is regulated by Article 113 of the Constitution. For the reasons already stated, the positions already advanced by the Auditor General are baseless, unsupported and unsubstantiated.
iii. Ref’ the mere airing of baseless, unsupported and unsubstantiated positions and allegations constitutes misconduct so serious as to warrant the dismissal of the Auditor General.
iv. The questioning of the correctness of the opinions of the Attorney General, as well as the allegations of issuance of opinions with the purpose of covering criminal offenses or any other purpose attributed to them, are af’ itself an unfounded, unsupported and morally objectionable allegation that constitutes misconduct.
n. His conflict with the citizens constitutes behavior that is not compatible with the position of the Auditor General. It constitutes inappropriate behavior which de’ she justifies his dismissal.
157. The conduct of the Auditor General, as recorded in detail above, is devoutly submitted to be inappropriate and due to his conduct is causing and/or attempting to cause erosion of public trust in the institutions, since contractually trying to alter and/or distort the image of the institutions in the eyes of the citizens. However, the consequences are not limited only in this direction, since as explained in the body of the Report of Facts, they are also disastrous for the proper functioning of the State itself, given that controlled institutions /officials are reasonably convinced that the Auditor General has targeted them and is adopting an attitude improper or hostile to their own interests and according to expansion of the Services/Organizations or the organization, which the Auditor General has the authority to audit, since with his actions and behavior the Auditor General has lost the apparent as well as the real objectivity and independence that should distinguish him during exercising his powers.
158. The Auditor General is dismissed on the same terms as the Judges of the Supreme Court and therefore his attitude and behavior should be equivalent to that of the Judges. On the contrary, the analyzed behavior of the Auditor General unfortunately does not meet the requirements of the high institution he has sworn to serve but reasonably creates the belief that he is unfit and unable to continue to perform his duties in a fair, objective, impartial and with an ulterior purpose the defense of the public interest and carries the risk of bringing the offices and institutions in general into disrepute.
159. The impermissible and extra-institutional way of reaction of the Auditor General by making it public in writing or through his statements in the media or social media, sometimes even before the auditees themselves are informed, is undoubtedly harmful to the individual audited and affects him against the performance of his duties, as well as running the risk of undermining public confidence in government officials. Also, in relation to the Attorney General and his opinions, the Auditor General uses the same tactic and makes public in writing or through his statements in the media or social media his disputing the opinions of the Attorney General, attributing their expediency.
160. At the same time, the insulting, derogatory and indecent language used in public by the Auditor General, as well as his style, constitutes behavior that is not compatible with the highest position of the Office he serves and the projection on his part of baseless, unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations constitutes inappropriate behavior.
161. The rules of conduct of the Judges that apply according to ratio for the independent officials provided for by the Constitution impose politeness and self-restraint, self-control, essential judgment, characteristics that do not correspond to the Auditor General, as established by the content of the statements, written and oral recorded in the body of this Application and his entire behavior . Conduct by a Supreme Court Justice or other officer who is dismissed on the same terms and in the same manner as Supreme Court Justices, similar to that of the Auditor General and widely publicized, would undoubtedly lead to their dismissal.
< p>162. The Applicant reserves the right to add examples that reinforce all of the above facts and/or additional facts that constitute misconduct.
163. For all the above reasons, the Applicant requires the issuance of the requested decisions as his Application.
