In a statement by the former protected witness “Maximos Sarafi” that the deposits he had given in the Novartis case “were true”, the one -member Criminal Court began the trial of the then protection of witnesses for false deposition and false misrepresentation against politicians.

Accused Filistor Desesbasidis, who was code -named “Maximos Sarafis”, also said that his defense intends to apply to the court for the transmission of the trial through television and other media “because of the substantive public interest” 5 -year period.

In his statement, Mr. Desesbasidis said:

“I am tried today for two alleged crimes (false deposition, false misrepresentation), which relate to my contribution to the investigation of the Novartis scandal, and in particular the testimonies I have given as a witness to the public interest to the competent prosecutors of Touloupakis officials.

Obviously, I deny the accusations and declare once again that these deposits are true.

In any case now I note that, as my lawyer will explain, the attentive criminal acts (which I have not done) have already been limited to the drafting of the summons after five years since their alleged commitment.

Of particular legal importance is the fact that the procedure of the then applicable Article 45 b par.

My lawyer will explain why, according to Article 7 of the ECHR, the application of Article 45 of the CCI (CC: About the prosecution of protected witnesses) in this case rather than the newer Article 47 CCI leads to my exemption.

We all know that Novartis’s under consideration was first denounced by protected witnesses in the US and that those complaints were based on Novartis’s criminal settlement, which chose to pay $ 311 million in America to avoid criminal proceedings in Greece.

This case file of America is obviously interested in the present trial.

It is also of particular importance that the conditions for receiving the deposit in question by prosecutors and their content were examined in detail by the Supreme Greek Court of Article 86 of the Constitution, in the context of investigating a relevant criminal category against the reported prosecutors.

This court, in 2022 unanimously acquitted prosecutors and ruled that I am a credible witness to public interest. My lawyer will develop the relevant judgment, which also binds your court.

If today’s trial begins, my lawyer will explain that, in any case, the unfair of the crimes examined under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights for the Protection of Public Interest under Article 10 of the ECHR, in conjunction with Articles 5A and Articles 5 A and Articles 5 A and Articles 5 A and Articles. Union law affects the present trial and abolishes – and it – unjust.

But first your court must judge whether it was legal to revoke my designation as a witness to a public interest, whether it was legal to revoke definitive abstention and criminal prosecution and whether the prosecution was lawful.

The relevant three objections to the invalidity of the summons of the summons, which impede the progress of the present proceedings, will then be developed by my lawyer.

I want to point out another legal problem of this trial:

Because there is no evidence in this proceedings (no witnesses, no documents, I did not apologize during the short preliminary examination), its conduct presupposes the summons of the necessary witnesses and the submission of the necessary documents, in accordance with the requests.

Madam President, Mrs. Prosecutor,

Let me express my satisfaction, because almost nine years after the first investigation of the Novartis scandal by the US authorities on the basis of the deposits of the protected witnesses there, the trial for this scandal begins in a Greek court, which, like novartis itself in the US and the US itself.

Because, finally, in the present trial there is obviously a substantial public interest, I ask to allow it to be broadcast by television, radio, internet and in general any media.“

The former protected witness – under the code name “Catherine Kelesi” – Maria Marangeli is also charged with the case, while former protected witness Nikos Maniadakis has a double capacity as he is charged with another suitor.

The defense has raised objections to the support of the category and also in the limitation of the offenses. For the first category of objections, the court issued a rejection ruling while they are expected to be judged on limitation issues.