The annulment of the decision of the Supreme Court, under a single member composition, to cancel a search warrant on the home and vehicle of a person-suspect for a multitude of crimes, the Supreme Court, under a three-member composition, decided, following an appeal by the Attorney General of the Republic, the Legal Service states in a statement .
The case, it is added, concerns the issuance of a search warrant, which was annulled by a single-member Supreme Court through the issuance of a privileged warrant (Certiorari) and subsequently, the annulment of the decision of the single-member Supreme Court by a three-member Supreme Court panel. The decision of the Supreme Court (with a three-judge bench) was issued on Thursday, it added.
Specifically, it is reported, in March 2024, the District Court issued a warrant to search the home and vehicle of a person-suspect for multiple crimes, based on reasonable cause. "The suspect filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a Certiorari, seeking the annulment of the search warrant of the District Court, with his request being accepted by the Supreme Court (under a single member composition)," it added.
"The position of the single-member Supreme Court was that the search warrant was issued by the District Court in excess of its jurisdiction," it states, noting that, on this decision, the Attorney General of the Republic appealed. It is added that the position of the Attorney General of the Republic was, among other things, "that the search warrant had been legally issued by the District Court and that the single-member Supreme Court, by annulling the search warrant, had, in essence, carried out a review of the correctness of the exercise of the discretion of the District Court instead of being limited, as required by law and jurisprudence, to a review of the legality of the decision".
"The Supreme Court, under its three-member composition, fully accepted the positions of the Attorney General of the Republic, as presented by the Assistant Attorney General during the examination of the appeal, and decided to annul the decision of the single-member Supreme Court which had canceled the warrant research," it added. It is added that the Supreme Court in its decision shows that "the power of the Court to issue privileged warrants does not have as its object the correctness of the decisions of lower Courts (including District Courts), nor the manner of exercising their discretion".
"A privileged procedure such as the one under discussion, is not a substitute for the appellate procedure and a means to check the correctness of the decisions of the lower Courts. […] What is of interest is the legality of the controlled actions, that is, the lawful exercise of the lower Court's jurisdiction. Even in the event that the Court has wrongly perceived and interpreted a piece of legislation, it is corrected by appeal and not by means of privileged orders" it is added.
"Also interesting is the reference to the decision of the three-judge Supreme Court that the seizure of cell phones does not amount to access to private communication and that cell phones, as objects of daily use, can reasonably be expected to be found in the home where a suspect lives, indicating and the low bar that must be overcome to establish the relevant reasonable suspicion,” it states. It is added that, "it is in this direction that the District Court that issued the warrant acted and its judgment is not permissible to be reviewed and replaced."
It is noted that in addition to the Assistant Attorney General of the Republic, the Attorney General was represented by the Attorney General of the Republic, Polina Efthyvoulou, and the Attorney General of the Republic, Petros Varnavas.
Source: KYPE
