Under the heading “Relationships between prosecution authorities and independent bodies – respect or violation of the guarantees of the rule of law” Evangelos Venizelos Comments on opinion of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Isidoros Dogiakosin case of ADAE monitoring and control limits.

Mr. Venizelos, in an extensive scientific legal study published in the digital legal journal Constitutionalism.gr, formulates analytical legal scientific arguments and an extensive legal bibliography.

It states, inter alia, that “The Opinion of the Prosecutor of the AU dated 1/2023 was given in excess of authority and raises significant issues of compliance with the principle of separation of powers, the constitutionally guaranteed competence of independent authorities. , distribution of jurisdiction between the judicial branches and the internal independence of prosecutorial and judicial officials who have been or will be accepted to adjudicate administrative disputes or criminal cases involving a private company that have been addressed to the prosecutor of the AU and have received his advisory attention.”

According to Evangelos Venizelos, “The matrix of the problem lies in the perception reflected in the Opinion regarding the institutional status of the five independent authorities provided for in the Constitution, and in particular the ADAE. Independent principles do not depend on fluctuations and random choice of a common legislature. This is the meaning and normative contribution of their constitutional recognition. The same applies to bodies provided for by EU law, usually regulating, such as the EETT and RAE, which the national legislator cannot castrate or deprive of their powers. “For the most part, principles such as HRD and HRD, which are enshrined in both the Constitution and EU law, have the layered protection offered by a “strengthened Constitution,” he stresses.

He adds that Mr. Dogiakou’s opinion is “wrong when he considers that a general legislator can deprive the Independent Power of significant control powers, or even prohibit it, and even under the threat of criminal sanctions, to exercise its constitutional powers”, surrounding as an effective institutional guarantee “absolutely » the inviolable right to the secrecy of communications (Article 25 par. 1 sub. b Syn.)”.

He speaks of “an interpretative dead end of the ‘legal’ interpretation of the Constitution, which tries to neutralize the national formal Constitution, but cannot be brought before national courts, much less before the CJEU and the ECtHR”.

In addition, Evangelos Venizelos comments on the relationship between the prosecutor’s office and independent bodies, where he notes that “from the moment the institution of independent bodies was introduced in the Constitution with the 2001 edition until today, the prosecution authorities treat them with distrust or even open hostility, and this manifested itself, in particular in the area of ​​confidentiality of messages and protection of personal data……. Independent bodies do not limit the competence of justice, but strengthen the fundamental rights of a person as an individual and as a member of society (Article 25, paragraph 1 of Coll.)” and add: “…However, in this case 1/2023, it is not about in order to exercise control of the prosecutor’s office over the EMP and telecommunications providers in the framework of pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, which, as a judicial competence, is preferable than that of ADAE, but in not exercising control at all!

It is also placed in the realm of protecting the confidentiality of messages after the recent law 5002/2022, which states that the UDHR has barriers, for example that there should be special guarantees, and it provides for the consent of the Speaker of Parliament, effectively expanding the meaning of a political figure to include mayors and regional governors. The second barrier is to remove the relevant body from ADAE and transfer it to a three-member committee with two prosecutors and an ADAE president.

Mr. Venizelos concluded by stating: “I hope that an intelligent, experienced and discreet lawyer with experience and the ability to resist the affronts to the internal independence of the judiciary that the current Supreme Court Prosecutor possesses will find the will and courage to reconsider the Opinion. Personally, I would be very happy to read or hear arguments demonstrating that the opinion has been misunderstood and that it does not support positions like those that have been the subject of scientific criticism and legal commentary that preceded it.