-
.
- Ελληνικά
The Attorney General of the Republic, Mr George L. Savvidis, on the issue of the requests of public prosecutors - which was discussed in Parliament this morning - on the separation of powers of the Attorney General and on the bill on the criminalisation of deserving behaviour on the Internet.
Stressing that the heads of the Legal Service were in full agreement with the demands of the public prosecutors, which included the issue of their security and salary upgrades, which he described as fair and very serious, he indicated that the leadership of the Legal Service had already taken action on these issues before the matter was even brought before Parliament.
Asked whether he agrees, or is satisfied, or considers that additional measures should be taken to protect the public prosecutors, in light of the strong criticism of the Police during the Commission's session, the Attorney General of the Republic referred to the importance he attaches to the Police taking the necessary measures to protect the members of the Legal Service. He disclosed that there is a relevant action plan on the part of the Police, the cost of which was recently approved by the Ministry of Finance. "It is a difficult question for me to answer because the issue of security of persons is not a matter that falls under my jurisdiction. It is important that the Police take those measures necessary to prevent similar cases of attacks on any member of the Legal Service, whether he or she is a public prosecutor or a lawyer of the Republic. We have already received a plan of action from the Police. The financial cost to cover this plan has recently been approved by the Ministry of Finance. I have found full cooperation and sympathy from the President of the Republic, as Ms. Piki has mentioned today, and I believe that we should proceed with the plan that the Police are proposing and that the Police believe is satisfactory. Whether it will be satisfactory or not, I cannot answer that."
He further added that it is to be expected that public prosecutors continue to feel insecure, saying: "[PROSECUTORS] understand and know what the measures are and are already expecting them to be implemented. I don't think it is right, as I said within the Commission, to give more details about the measures that have been taken, but they are certainly measures in the right direction, which the prosecutors themselves approve of. I must tell you that nothing has ever separated us from the public prosecutors. That's why I mentioned this morning [IN SESSION] that I was surprised to see some reports that said that "[THE LEADERSHIP OF THE LEGAL SERVICE] will be in the dock," that we have a confrontation. There is no confrontation at all. We are on the same side, we are fully sympathetic, we will help and we had already arranged to solve the problems, to advance their problems long before today's ex officio session in Parliament."
The Attorney General of the Republic also referred to the issue of the separation of powers of the Attorney General. Responding to a question from a journalist, who attributed to the Attorney General a reference within the session that "for some people the separation of the Legal Service is a life goal" and asking him to clarify whether his relevant statement before the Committee related to politicians or parties, Mr. Savvidis replied, "I think someone who reads the public statements of people - whether they are politicians, whether they are institutions, whether they are anything else - I think that one can understand who I was addressing and who I meant. I do not think it is important at this moment to say anything [OTHER] than what I said in the Commission. When the time comes to consult with that body with which we will have to discuss the matter, we will position ourselves and express our views with full honesty, with full clarity and with full substantiation of our positions."
In response to a question about GRECO reports on the unaccountability of the Attorney General, Mr. Savides clarified that the issue was alluded to by the Rule of Law, in the 2023 Report and indicated that the Legal Service of the Republic is in the final stage of launching an internal hierarchical process of reviewing its decisions not to prosecute or suspend criminal proceedings, which will be publicly announced. In particular, the Attorney General said: "I would like to reiterate something that was said by the Attorney General of the Republic at a previous meeting of a Committee of Parliament, that we are in the process of preparing a hierarchical procedure for reviewing decisions not to prosecute or to suspend a criminal prosecution, and we are in the final stage of announcing it and putting it into operation in a manner that in our opinion fully complies with the Rule of Law Report 2023.
We will make public the regulations on which an application for suspension of a criminal prosecution can be made by an interested party Now whether they will be disclosed to the public, which is your question, is not relevant to the issue of review. Certainly the interested party will know the outcome of the application for review that they make. If the matter relates to matters of public interest, we will, as we have done in the past - and we have in all cases involving public interest - provide extensive answers and explanations of the reasons that led us to a decision either to prosecute or not to prosecute."
In relation to his recent previous statements to the CPS [P.P. 8 APRIL 2024], in which he advocated for the passage of a bill to criminalize deserving conduct on the Internet and PMBs, which - as quoted by a journalist - provoked debate, and asked whether he still insisted that such conduct should be criminalized, the Attorney General replied:
"There have been misunderstood and tend to be misunderstood, perhaps artificially, some statements I have made on a matter which in my opinion is both simple and in line with the wishes of the majority of people. There is full respect, at least from me personally, for the issue of freedom of speech and expression. My position in favour of a particular bill, which is from 2020 that has been going back and forth between Parliament and the Ministry of Justice, is because I believe that we as a State need to draw the line between freedom of speech and impunity. And I'm not talking about matters of criticism. If you read the bill as it was varied after several sessions in the House, you will see that this bill, in its current form, is very, very limited in scope and refers to overtly threatening and other conduct, which is clearly reprehensible, and which, if done in any other way and not over the Internet, would be against the law. This legislation must be enacted because there is this loophole that Internet posting is not something that is covered by the antiquated provisions of the Criminal Code. I believe that the way the bill has been written and the way the exceptions have been put into the bill, there is no one who should reasonably be concerned either about the issue of dealing with false news or the issue of dealing with overtly threatening or abusive behaviour. Every person has the right to criticise. Harsh criticism. It is a right that has been accepted by the courts in our country that freedom of speech allows even harsh criticism of public figures. But to proceed with insults and threats against people's lives is crossing a line that I believe needs to be legally regulated. That is my personal position and it is up to Parliament to decide how to go about it."
Asked whether the bill under consideration exempts the media, the head of the Legal Service replied, "I believe that the media has serious and professional journalists, who I do not believe will ever go to the point of engaging in insult or deliberate misrepresentation of false news in order to fool people. So I do not think that journalists, the media to which you refer, have anything to fear from this bill. It is so strongly worded that it covers neither the expression of opinion nor the expression of criticism."
In response to a journalist's statement that some perceive this bill as a gagging measure, and asked if the bill will also affect journalists who criticize public figures, Savides said: "Let's not confuse two different things. This bill is not about expressing dissatisfaction about expressing criticism. It does not affect the issue of criticism at all. As it stands-and I understand that it will come before the House soon-it will have to do with threats, obvious threats, obvious fake news-and there are defenses when there is good faith. So it's mostly about bad faith [ACTIONS] and I don't think there's anything that a person would fear that they might, in the course of performing their duties, fall into error. In any event, any prosecution with these offences will need the agreement of the Attorney General. So they will not be able [TO PROCEED WITH] private criminal cases against people who have been harassed."
The statements of the Attorney General of the Republic were made on the sidelines of the session of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Public Order where the issue of security and salary upgrades for public prosecutors was discussed under the ex officio procedure.
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
