The application for the waiver of the immunity of Mr. Themistocleous and the permission to initiate criminal proceedings against him will be presented before the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court for Instructions on Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12.00 noon.
The application was submitted to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of the Republic on 7/1/2016 "in order to enable his criminal prosecution in relation to recent serious allegations of traffic violations against him", according to an announcement issued by the Legal Service.
The announcement stated that the study and evaluation of the data requested by the Attorney General "revealed the existence of a very large number of convictions and extrajudicial complaints against the MP, mainly for speeding, including 141 kilometers per hour, 170 chaos, up to 190 χαω. "Furthermore, from the relevant police statements, it emerged that in several cases the same MP showed indecent behavior towards the police bodies, invoking his parliamentary immunity, when he was informed that he would complain", the announcement concluded.
Commenting on the decision of the Attorney General, Mr. Themistokleous, in a statement, expressed his confidence in the Cypriot Justice and wished the decision of the Supreme Court to be issued as soon as possible, avoiding to enter into the substance of the complaint against him. "Until I officially receive the indictment and have full knowledge of the charges against me, I have nothing to say other than the trust I have in the Cypriot Justice."
If the Supreme Court accepts the application then it will be the fourth time that the immunity of a member of parliament is lifted in the history of the Cypriot Parliament. The most recent concerns EDEK MP Feidia Sarika in relation to the much-praised case of SAPA in Paphos. Specifically, on February 9, 2015, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court ordered the lifting of the immunity of Mr. Sarikas for the purposes of his interrogation with the Attorney General Costas Clerides to speak about a decision-station in the Cypriot jurisprudence.
"Apart from the fact that this is the third time that the court has dealt with such an application, it is the first time that it has ruled in this general way regarding the extent of the decree lifting the immunity", Mr. Clerides had stated at the time. It is recalled that the decision of the Court was unanimous in approving the request of the Legal Service for the waiver of the immunity of the Member, however the issue concerning the extent of the waiver of his immunity was decided by a majority of 7 to 4.
Before the Supreme and the issue with store hours
Moreover, tomorrow, Tuesday at 12.00 noon, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court for Instructions will be brought before the Plenary Session of the Attorney General in the Supreme Court in relation to the voting against the Regulations that had been submitted to the House of Representatives.
The Legal Service with its announcement on 31/12/2015 noted that with the appeal “a statement of the Court is requested that the Decision of the House of Representatives dated. 10.12.2015 by which he rejected the Regulations that had been approved by the Council of Ministers in relation to the determination of issues of operation of the stores, violates the Principle of Separation of Powers and is invalid ”. Furthermore, "the Supreme Court is requested to issue a statement according to which the rejected Regulations of the Council of Ministers continue to be valid and can be published and enter into force immediately".
Applicants in the appeal are the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers as bodies of Executive Power and as the application is the House of Representatives.
It is recalled that the Supreme Court ruled on 3/12/2015 that the law passed by Parliament on the opening hours of stores on 7/5/2015 is unconstitutional and is inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers. The Plenary Session of the Court concluded that the regulation of store hours, the designation of areas and zones, but also the creation of a special regime for some stores falls within the exclusive competence of the executive and constitutes, in essence, an administrative regulation.
Source: KYPE