The law proposal of E. Charalambidou attempts to put an end to the uncontrolled c. prosecutor to justify the exemptions of defendants from criminal cases
Based on Article 113 of the Constitution, the Attorney General of the Republic has the power to intervene and interrupt criminal proceedings. A unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, issued on the 12th of the month, confirmed the constitutionally derived power of the attorney general to initiate, conduct, undertake, continue or discontinue any criminal proceedings, as long as, in his judgment, this is in the public interest. In fact, any public interest is judged by the attorney general himself without having to give any explanation and is, of course, not subject to judicial review. Therefore, in this matter the attorney general does whatever he wants without being accountable to anyone.
The law proposal
In tomorrow's session of the plenary session of the Parliament, Irini Charalambidou's law proposal will be submitted to amend the Constitution in order to control the decisions of the attorney general taken on the basis of article 113 of the Constitution. The law proposal of Mrs. Charalambidou is expected to be signed by MPs from other parties. Already, the two MPs of the Environmentalists announced yesterday that they support the law proposal of Mrs. Charalambidou.
It should be noted that in order to amend the Constitution, the positive vote of 2/3 of the deputies must be secured.
According to Mrs. Charalambidou, "all international organizations point out the necessity of this reform. The European Commission's report on the rule of law in Cyprus, released in July 2023, was clear on this point. "The lack of reviewability of the Attorney General's decisions not to prosecute or to discontinue prosecution raises concerns." According to EU data, Cyprus is the only member state in which there is no provision for any form of control of the said decisions of the attorney general, judicially or hierarchically. This is inconsistent with transparency and accountability, necessary conditions for the rule of law."
The Russian oligarch
The Attorney General Giorgos Savvidis exercising the powers granted to him by Article 113 of the Constitution decided, on 16/01/2024, to discontinue the private criminal case registered against a Russian oligarch at the Nicosia District Court for alleged real estate fraud in a Moscow shopping center , with a total area of 126,238 sq.m. and worth 113.4 million dollars. According to the indictment, the Russian oligarch also had associates in Cyprus. The indictment filed in the context of the private criminal case was prepared by the well-known criminologist Efstathios Efstathiou on behalf of his complaining client.
I strongly accuse Efstathiou against the general prosecutor
Mr. Efstathiou with his letter to the general prosecutor, dated 26/01/2024, revealed in yesterday's edition by "P", strongly protesting the intervention of Mr. Savvidis in a dispute between two individuals that is before the Court. Mr. Efstathiou has launched a scathing accusation against the attorney general for his decision to suspend the private criminal case against the Russian oligarch and accuses him of abusing the unchecked power granted to him by the Constitution. And more seriously, it attributes to him motives for his intervention that refer to alleged acts of corruption.
Among other things, in his letter Mr. Efstathiou mentions the following verbatim to the general prosecutor Giorgos Savvidis:
1 {ARXIGRAMMA While the case is before the Court (s.s. District Court of Nicosia) for adjudication you decided to suspend the criminal prosecution of XXX (s.s. the Russian oligarch is named). The suspension of the criminal prosecution is carried out, as you mention in the letter you addressed to us, in exercise of the powers given to you by articles 113 and 114.1 of the Constitution. But Article 113 of the Constitution gives you this right to stay criminal charges if it serves the public interest. And it begs the question: How is the public interest served when XXX is left free and unpunished to enjoy the spoils of hundreds of millions of dollars at our client's expense? Do you really believe that you have served the public interest by suspending criminal prosecution, or is there a person who can believe that the interests of society and the state are being served in this way?
2 The answer is that what was sought and achieved was that XXX should not be prosecuted and when, with the permission of the Criminal Court, the trial of the case began, you intervened to frustrate the default conviction of the accused since the case was now in the hands of Justice. With this act of yours, you have diverted the course of Justice by aborting a judicial process that was in progress, interfering with the work of the Courts. The Courts of Justice are today in our country the only remaining fortress of society for the protection of the human rights of citizens and democracy.
3 In this case you have violated the Constitution and the European Directives. Until I received your letter, I was approaching you with the feeble theory that possibly the course you adopted for the impunity of XXX was due to the advice of pernicious officers of the Legal Service. However, the suspension of the criminal prosecution which you proceeded with creates a reasonable suspicion that you did so to serve the private interest of XXX whom you did not prosecute but, on the contrary, protected him with an impenetrable firewall when there was allegedly no case against him, and when the trial of his case was now imminent with the complainant accused, in order to avoid the trial as originally planned, by your decision you suspended his criminal prosecution.
4 You have considered that you can invoke the absolutism, as you think, of Article 113 of the Constitution that the powers of the attorney general are not checked, thinking that with this provision you will avoid your responsibilities. Because that's how you've been used to doing until now. You are accountable, however, to the scrutiny of your actions by the vast majority of society's citizens, who you believe will remain silent on this despicable offense you have committed. In other words, you relied on the fact that the matter would go unnoticed, relying on the silence of the lambs. However, you made a big mistake because apart from the International Treaty, wronged citizens-victims of crimes have the right to address the competent department of the European Parliament, denouncing the authorities of states that did not serve them.
Mr. Efstathiou is pushing for his client…
According to the written statement of the attorney general to "P", which we also published in our yesterday's edition, "Mr. Efstathiou is trying to exert pressure, in various ways, to achieve what in his opinion serves his client. All of Mr. Efstathiou's letters have been duly answered and this is yet another attempt to exert pressure on the Legal Service to overturn its decision."
Besides, with his intervention yesterday on "P" radio, the lawyer of the Russian oligarch, Kostas Velaris, stated that his client did not commit anything reprehensible. Publicizing, at the same time, his intention to take legal action against his colleague, Efstathios Efstathios, for the non-existent complaints he launched, as he said, against his client.