[VASSILIADLS, AC Ρ, JOSEPHIDFS, STAVRINIDES, LOIZOU, HADJIANASTASSIOU, A C 1966 Oct 1 JJ JJ ] ANDREAS TSOURIS (No. 2) and A N D R E A S T S O U R I S (No 2). Appellant, ami THE COUNCIL O F REGISTRATION O F ARCHITECTS A N D CIVIL E N G I N E E R S . Respondent (Revtsional Jurisdiction Appeal No IS) Anhnects and Cut! Engineers—Constitutionality of section 9
(2)of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law, 1962 (Law No 41 oj 1962), prescribing a time-limit for the submission of an application to the Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers for the issue oj a licence as an architect b) profession under section 9 (I) (A) of the said Law—The matter is fully co\ered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers ν Kyriakides, reported inthis part at ρ 640, ante—Section 9
(2)is therefore constitutional Constitutional Law—Constitutionaht\ oj legislatne enactments— Section 9
(2)of the said Law No. 41 oj 1962 (supra) Cases referred to . The Board for Registiation of Architects and Ct\il Engineers ν K\nakides reported in this Part at ρ 640. ante, jollowed The decision in K\rtakides' case (supra) was followed and applied in the following two cases Joseph HjiLoucas ν The Board for Registiation of Archi tects and Cml Engmeeis and Demetnos Papademetriou ν The Board for Registration of Architects etc en . reported in this Part at pp 666 and 671, ante, respectively This is an appeal against the decision of the Court, sitting in its original jurisdiction, (reported in this Part at ρ 426 ante) whereby it was decided that theprovisionsin section 9
(2)of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law, 1962 (Law N o 41 of 1962) prescribing a time-limit for the submission of an application to the Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers for the issue of a licence as an architect 771 THt COUNCILOF REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGUNEFRS 1966 Oct. I ANDREAS TSOURIS (No. 2) and T H E COUNCIL O F REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS by profession under section 9
(1)(A) of the Law, are constitutional. The Supreme Court affirming the decision appealed from dismissed the appeal. Appeal. Appeal against the judgment* of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (TriantafyHides, J.) given on the 30th April, 1966, (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 13/65) whereby a recourse against the decision of the Respondent refusing to register Applicant as an architect by profession under section 9
(1)(A) of the Architects and Civil Engineers Law, 1962 (Law 41/62) was dismissed. A. Pantelides, for the Appellant. • Lel/os Demetriades, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:VASSILIADES, AG. P.: The only point raised in this appeal as prescribed by learned counsel for the Appellant at the early part of his address, is, in the unanimous opinion of the Court, fully and clearly covered by the decision in the case of The Boardfor Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers v. Christodoulos Kyriakides, Revisional Appeal No. 9, decided on the 30th June this year (and now reported in this Part at p. 640 ante) about a month after the lodging of the present appeal. The decision in Kyriakides' case was followed and applied in two other cases of the same nature, Joseph Hji Loucas v. The Boardfor Registrationof ArchitectsandCivilEngineers, and Demetrios Papademetriou against the same Board, (reported in this Part at pp. 666 and 671, ante, respectively) all turning on practically the same legal issues and constitutional provisions as those raised in the present recourse. Learned counsel for the Applicant herein has not been able to distinguish in any way, this case from those just referred to; or to show that they were wrongly decided. We, therefore, found it unnecessary to call on the other side; and we dismiss the appeal. Reported in this Part at p. 426 ante. 772 As regards costs, we are inclined to the view that as there appears to have been room for doubt regarding the matter in issueinthis recourse,at least until thedecision in Revisional Appeal No. 9 (supra) and, therefore, room for doubt when the present appeal was taken, we propose to make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. No order for costs. Order in terms. 773 1966 Oct. 1 ANDREAS TSOURIS (No. 2) and THE COUNCIL OF REGISTRATION OP ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS