For one unprecedented interventionbecause of which he should refrain from his duties, they said constitutionaliststaking into account accommodation Christos Tzanerikos For government amendmentto block a party’s participation Kasidiari at the elections.

In an interview with SKAI, Mr. Charalambos Anthopoulos, Professor of Public Law E.A.P. stated: “I am surprised by the rather aggressive style and yet unexpected. The style of speech, unexpected for the chief judge. And the argument that this has never happened before is not reasonable, because there has never been such a case and such a crisis so far, A1, when declaring combinations of sides, acted, as a rule, completely epic. Therefore, such an agreement is justified by the urgency of the issue, and the intervention of Mr. Tzanerikos seems to me unjustified.”

OUR Panos Lazaratos, professor of administrative law, Univ. School of Law. Athens stated: “I consider it institutionally unacceptable to hold such discussions, especially the initiative of the supreme judge at such a time that if desired it leads him to self-exclusion, I think he will make a declaration of abstention from the procedure, which will take place in a few days. He talks about photographic processing from the point of view of his own face. In my opinion, this is not the case, this is by no means a photographic regulation, but again a general and abstract regulation, which gives this solution much more guarantees.

OUR Evangelos Venizelos he had previously stressed: “I take it for granted that Mr. Vice President of the AU will make a declaration of abstention from any relevant procedure. This is the first time that a serving bailiff has taken this position, publicly delivers his judgment before judging and issuing a decision.”

OUR Anthony ManitakisAUTH Professor Emeritus, Head of the Scientific Committee of the Judicial Council of Nicosia, said: “I do not see, at first glance, constitutionally unacceptable interference either in the work, or in the organization, or in the activities of the court. I believe that this decision to increase provides great guarantees of objectivity and impartial and sound judgment. Since it will be decided by a double number of judges. The ruling aims to secure any decision of the Supreme Court against possible objections.”

Constitutionalist Kostas Botopoulos stated: “Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t necessarily mean it’s really illegal anyway, and I said that and I said earlier that it wasn’t necessary, it was a question that is an inside question. In other words, the internal functioning of the court. But I say again, in my opinion, this legislative regulation in itself, even if it has the problems that we talked about, that is, it is not necessary and represents bad legislation, I do not consider it illegal.”