The Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the original ruling to dismiss a civil lawsuit by a private individual against the authority of the Attorney General of the Republic, for his intervention and interrupting of a criminal prosecution for reasons of public interest without justification, as absolutely correct.
The Court of Appeals issued this decision on January 12, 2023.
According to an announcement by the Legal Service, the lawsuit sought the Court to recognize that the decision of the Attorney General of the Republic to suspend two private criminal prosecutions in June 2016 was, among other things, invalid since the then Attorney General did not provide a justification for the suspension in terms of public interest.
The Court of Appeals, considering the first-instance court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit as correct and characterizing the jurisprudence as crystallized, stated that the authority of the Attorney General of the Republic to intervene and interrupt a criminal procedure when, in his judgment, it is in the public interest, is not subject to judicial review.
The Court of Appeals mentioned:
“[The first court] … analyzed the authority of the Attorney General of the Republic to intervene and interrupt a criminal procedure, explaining the obvious, based on the crystallized jurisprudence, that the Attorney General has unchecked authority to initiate, conduct, take over, continue, or interrupt any procedure, as long as, in his judgment, this is in the public interest.
The 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 public interest, with any such decision being considered to serve the public interest, without the need to provide any explanation for it.”
The Court of Appeals also ruled that there is no reason to differentiate the jurisprudence, and it would be improper to do so.
All claims of the plaintiff were rejected by the Court of Appeals, which awarded costs in favor of the Republic. The case was handled by Ms. Marianna Tsagkari, Attorney of the Republic A’, on behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic.
