The Constitution finds violations in the Supreme decision, gives the company “Matkos” rights for plant permits

This was rejected by two nongovernmental organisations that rejected the legality of these decisions through indictments at the Constitutional Court, where the delay in executing decisions until resolving the merits of the case was required.

The Constitutional Court had approved it as based on the proposal of two non-governmental organisations and ruled to postpone the execution of environmentally competent Ministry decisions, water and environmental permits respectively, until the Constitutional Court makes final decision on the merits of the case. After the complaint filed by the applicant, in quality of the interested party, the Court of Appeals annulled the first degree ruling and returned the subject to the Constitutional Court for Restitution.

The case went to the Supreme Court. By deciding on the request for extraordinary review of the judicial decision of nongovernmental organisations, the Supreme Court approved their request, annulled the Court of Appeals' Act, and confirmed the first instance of the Constitutional Court.

“During the assessment of the pre-excusor's claims, the Court first (i) expounded the general principles of its judicial practice and judicial practice of the European Court for Human Rights in terms of the reasoning of judicial decisions and clearly incorrect and arbitrary interpretation of the law, and later (i) applied the same principles in concrete circumstances. In this regard, the Court found that the Supreme Court, in addition to describing legal provisions, has not provided sufficient explanations regarding the criteria that must be met to decide to suspend the decisions of the competent Environment Ministry. In addition, and despite the fact that the lack of consideration of these provisions of the Law for Administrative Conflicts has been repeatedly highlighted in judicial instances through corresponding complaints on the part of the pre-executor, the Supreme Court accepted the position of the Constitutional Court, not considering the fundamental arguments of the relevant forger.”, the Constitutional Court ruling says.

Thus, the Constitutional Court ruled that the act of the Supreme Court of October 28th of 2021 has been issued “in opposition to the procedural guarantees specified with Article 31 of the Constitution regarding Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights, due to the lack of an rational decision and arbitrary interpretation and implementation of the law, and returned the case for review to the Supreme Court. This Act will also be met with competitive opinion.”