At an extraordinary meeting of the Parliament’s Institutions and Transparency Committee, which will take place on Friday morning (2/8), the request submitted by 5 parliamentary groups (SYRIZA, PASOK, Pleussi Eleftherias, New Left, KKE) to summon the prosecutor will be discussed of the Supreme Court, Georgia Adelini in order to explain the conclusion regarding the telephone surveillance case.
“There is a separation of powers”
Invoking the separation of powers, competent members of the Parliament pointed out that a judicial decision cannot be put to the discretion of the members of the Institutions and Transparency Committee, something that has never happened. As they mention in this regard, the legislative power cannot intervene in the core of the judicial power by controlling it for its decisions.
“The Parliament does not judge court decisions”, they emphasize, while referring to the article of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament (43A) which provides that the Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the Parliament “can call for a hearing the president and the vice-presidents of the Council of State, of the Supreme Court and the Court of Auditors, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, the general commissioner of the State of the Court of Auditors and the general commissioner of the administrative courts for issues related to operational issues of Justice and for the purpose of enhancing transparency”, they emphasize that concerns purely operational issues and not judicial decisions.
With regard to the conclusion of the Supreme Court prosecutor that the opposition requests to be forwarded to the committee, they stress that this cannot be done either as it is an integral part of the case file which is secret and only anyone with a legitimate interest can have access to it.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The conclusion of the Supreme Court, the case file for the case of telephone monitoring for the part concerning the EYP, as there was absolutely no evidence to connect the malicious software predator with this particular service, causing a storm of political reactions.
On the contrary, in the judgment of the supreme prosecutors, there is sufficient evidence of real owners of companies that in one way or another were involved in the case for the offense of violation of privacy of communications, which, however, at the time of the commission of the criminal act was a misdemeanor and as therefore the more lenient provision applies and the case will be referred directly to the audience.
#Wiretapping #Today #meeting #Committee #Institutions #Transparency
