In favor of the possibility of issuing an opinion, as was done in the observation case, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court, the Union of Prosecutors of Greece, in a statement supported the head of the prosecutor’s office, Isidoros Dogiakos.

As noted in the announcement, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court can, in accordance with the law, give opinions on matters of general interest, and objections can be raised if his opinion relates to aspects of matters before the courts.

According to the Union of Prosecutors, this does not apply to the surveillance opinion, since Mr. Dogiakos gave an opinion on the competence of the Anti-Corruption Commission, and not on issues that are pending in court.

The Union also emphasizes, referring to sharp criticism of Dogyakov, that “the expression of scientific and other opinions that evaluate or misinterpret its content cannot serve as a pretext for serving specific political methods and, on the one hand, for attacks on the institution, and on the other on the other hand, to try to prevent the passing of judgment and the expression of the opinion of the judiciary.”

“In accordance with the Constitution, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court and all prosecutors are included in the judicial function of the state and enjoy personal and functional independence.

The duty of the prosecutor, inter alia, is to uphold the rule of law, and the law, and in particular the provision of article 29 para. 2 of Law 4938/2022 (COCDL), empowers the prosecutor of the Supreme Court to give opinions on matters of general interest, to interpret the provisions of laws.

With regard to the provisions of the laws regarding the confidentiality of communications, opinions of the Prosecutors of the Supreme Court were previously issued under the numbers 9/2009, 12/2009 and 9/2011.

Disputes regarding the scope and limits of the advisory competence of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, as well as his opinion no. to exclude any possibility of influencing their decision, which in this case is not the case.

The expression of scientific and other opinions that evaluate or misinterpret its content cannot serve as a pretext for serving specific political methods and, on the one hand, for attacking the institution, and on the other hand, for trying to prevent the passing of a judgment and the expression of an opinion. judiciary.”