REPUBLIC ν. CHRISTOFOROU (1986) 3 CLR 1523 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup

Article 146

.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to challenge the decision in question of the Council of Ministers. Paragraph 2 of Article 146 of the Constitution reads as follows:- "Such a recourse may be made by a person whose any existing legitimate interest, which he has either as a person or by virtue of being a member of a Community, is adversely and directly affected by such decision or act or omission." In our view those of the respondents who were not among the fifty best candidates on the basis of the entrance examinations possessed, nevertheless, a legitimate interest,

Article 146

.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to file their recourses, because among the twenty-five male candidates who were eventually admitted to the Academy for the particular academic year there were candidates who had not succeeded as well as any one of the respondents at the entrance examinations. It seems that not all the fifty candidates who were the best at the entrance examinations accepted admission to the Academy and, as there had to be admitted, in any event, in accordance with the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers, twenty-five male candidates, there were in the end admitted male candidates who at the entrance examinations had been less successful than any one of the respondents; and, thus, each one of the respondents was excluded from admission to the Academy merely because of the said decision of the Council of Ministers and, consequently, an existing legitimate interest of theirs was adversely and directly affected,

Article 146.2 of the Constitution, by such decision.

They were, therefore, entitled to file their present recourses. Under Article 28.1 of the Constitution the respondents were entitled to equality of treatment by the administration as candidates for admission to the Academy; and under Article 28.2 of the Constitution such treatment could not have been affected by direct or indirect discrimination against the respondents on the ground of their sex, unless there existed provision to the contrary in the Constitution; and no such provision exists which could be found to render valid sex discrimination in the present instance. Of course, the right of the respondents to equality of treatment did not exclude the making of reasonable distinctions (see, in this respect, inter alia, The Republic v. Arakian,