|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1985) 3 CLR 1728
1985 July 2
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., L. LOIZOU, A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS,
DEMETRIADES, SAVVIDES, LORIS, STYLIANIDES, PIKIS, JJ.]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC,
Applicant,
y.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Respondents.
(Reference 1/84).
Constitutional Law-Reference by the President of the Republic under Article 140 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for its opinion-House of Representatives-Ambit of its powers-Council of Ministers-Ambit of its powers-Articles 54, 61, 116, 117, 167 and 168.1 of the Constitution-Prohibition of Engagement of Casual Employees, in the Public or Educational Service.
The President of the Republic, prior to the promulgation under Article 52 of the Constitution of the Engagement of Casual Employees (Public and Educational Service) Law, 1984, enacted by the House of Representatives, referred to the Supreme Court for its opinion the question whether section 3 of the said Law is repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of Article 54, 61, 116 6, 167 and 168.1 of the Constitution.
Held, (1) Prohibition of Engagement of Casual Employees is not repugnant to or inconsistent with Articles 54, 61, 116, 167 and 168.1 of the Constitution as the right to prohibit or regulate by legislation, such as the sub judice Law, the engagement of Casual Employees, is within the ambit of the exercise of the powers of the House of Representatives by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution, even if there has been approved for this purpose expenditure by means of the Budget of the Republic or by means of Supplementary Budgets.
(2) Paragraph 2 of section 3 of the sub judice Law, prescribing the procedure for the approval of the engagement of casual employees is repugnant to or inconsistent with Article 61 and 54 of the Constitution, as it contains elements of Administrative action, coming within the ambit of the exercise of the powers of the Council of Ministers under Article 54(a) of the Constitution, and is, therefore, partly beyond the limits of the exercise of the powers of the House of Representatives under Article 61 of the Constitution.
(3) As paragraph 2 cannot be separated from paragraphs 1 and 3 of section. 3 of the sub judice Law, the whole of section 3 viewed as an integral legislative provision is repugnant to and inconsistent with Articles 61 and 54 of the Constitution.
Opinion as above.
Reference.
Reference by the President of the Republic for the opinion of the Supreme Court of the question as to whether section 3 of the Engagement of Casual Employees (Public and Educational Service) Law, 1984 is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of Articles 54, 61, 116, 167 and 168.1 of the Constitution.
St. Soulioti (Mrs.), Attorney-General of the Republic, with L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic and N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the President of the Republic.
Ph. Clerides with E. Efstathiou, A. Markides, M. Papapetrou, A. Papacharalambous and Chr. Clerides, for the House of Representatives.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following opinion of the Court. On the 28th December 1984 the President of the Republic referred, under Article 140 of the Constitution, to the Supreme Court for its opinion the question as to whether section 3 of the Engagement of Casual Employees (Public and Educational Service) Law, 1984, is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of Articles 54, 61, 116, 167 and 168.1 of the Constitution;
The said Law was enacted by the House of Representatives on, the 29th November 1984. The President of the Republic, on the 6th December 1984, returned it to the House of Representatives for reconsideration under Article 51 of the Constitution, but on the 13th December 1984 the House of Representatives decided to persist in the, enactment of the Law and, on the 14th December 1984, notified its decision to the President of the Republic, who, before he promulgated the Law under Article 52 of the Constitution, filed the present Reference.
The Supreme Court considered preliminary objections of the House of Representatives on the 20th and 21st February 1985 and delivered its Decision thereon, on the 18th March 1985. Then, on 9th, 10th, 24th, 25th and 26th April 1985, the Court heard, through their counsel, arguments on behalf of the President of the Republic and the House of Representatives, pursuant to Article 140.2 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court considered the question referred to it and its unanimous Opinion is the following:
(1) Prohibition of engagement of casual employees is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 54, 61, 116, 167 and 168.1 of the Constitution because the House of Representatives, within the ambit of the exercise of its powers by virtue of Article 61 of the Constitution, has the right to prohibit or regulate by legislation, such as the sub judice Law, the engagement of casual employees even if there has been approved for this purpose expenditure by means of the Budget of the Republic or by means of Supplementary Budgets.
(2) The procedure for the approval of the engagement of casual employees, which is provided for by paragraph (2) of section 3 of the sub judice Law, contains elements of administrative action and is, therefore, partly beyond the limits of the exercise of the powers of the House of Representatives under Article 61 of the Constitution and comes within the ambit of the exercise of the powers of the Council of Ministers, in relation to the general direction and control of the government of the Republic, under Article 54(a) of the Constitution, and, consequently, is repugnant to, and inconsistent with, the said Articles 61 and 54.
(3) As the prohibition of the engagement of casual employees which is provided for by paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 3 of the sub judice Law cannot be separated from the aforesaid paragraph (2) of section 3, the whole of section 3, viewed as an integral legislative provision, is repugnant to, and inconsistent with, Articles 61 and 54 of the Constitution.
The present Opinion is notified, in accordance with Article 140.2 of the Constitution, to the President of the Republic and to the House of Representatives.
Opinion as above.