|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1985) 3 CLR 2580
1985 December 5
[A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, DEMETRIADES, SAVVIDES, LORIS,
STYLIANIDES, PIKIS, KOURRIS, JJ.]
ARCHIGOS KOMMATOS DIKEOSINIS,
Applicant,
v.
1. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,
2. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
Mr. M. TRIANTAFYLLIPES,
Respondents.
(Case No. 1009/85).
Recourse-Frivolous-Constitution Art. 134.2-Procedure there-under-Applicant seeking a declaration that the Office of the President of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and illegal and a declaration that the continuance in office of the President is unconstitutional as six years have elapsed since his, appointment thereto-The establishment and corn position of this Court is prescribed by the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous) Provisions Law 33/64 validly enacted under the Law of necessity-The recourse is in fact frivolous-Recourse dismissed.
Cases referred to:
Attorney-General v. Ibrahim, 1964 C.L.R. 195.
Recourse.
Recourse for a declaration of the Court that the office of the President of the Supreme Court is in accordance with the Constitution illegal and contrary to the Constitution.
Appellant appeared in person.
A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for respondent 1.
A. Triantafyllides with P. Polyviou and Chr. Triantafyllides, for respondent 2.
A LOIZOU J. gave the following judgment of the Court. In the present recourse the reliefs prayed for are the following:-
"(1) Declaration of the Court that the office of the President of the Supreme Court is in accordance with the Constitution illegal and contrary to the Constitution.
(2) Declaration of the Court that the continuance in office of the President of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional as six years have elapsed."
This Court on the 2nd September 1985 considered the recourse in its totality and concluded that it appeared to be prima facie frivolous. As a result it afforded to the parties the opportunity, having notified them about it, to be heard to-day under the provisions of Article 134.2 of the Constitution which provides as follows:
"When a recourse appears to be prima facie frivolous the Court may, after hearing arguments by or on behalf of the parties concerned, unanimously dismiss such recourse without a public hearing if satisfied that such recourse is in fact frivolous."
The applicant in addressing us state that he based his recourse on Articles 133 and 152 of the Constitution and that in particular he demanded, as he said, from Government to appoint a neutral President and that if the holding of office by the present President of the Supreme Court was justified in law, yet his term of office had to be limited to six years, which have already expired.
The establishment and composition of this Court since 1964 is prescribed by the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 1964 (Law No. 33 of 1964), the relevant provisions of which have been found in the case of the Attorney-General of the Republic v. Ibrahim, 1964 C.L.R. 195) to have been validly enacted under the doctrine of necessity.
The Court, having heard the applicant did not consider it either indispensable or necessary to hear the other litigants and it came unanimously to the conclusion that the present recourse is in fact frivolous and as such it is dismissed without a public hearing.
Recourse dismissed.