of the Constitution—Recourse for annulment of administrative acts or decisions—What is primarily before the Court is the decision subject-matter of the recourse— The parties to the recourse are of secondary importance—In the sense that they areonly heard insupport oragainst the validity of its subject-matter—See further infra.
of the Constitution—In examining such validity (supra) this Court can go into certain matters ex officio, and it can take cognizance of other matters only after they have been raised and established to its satisfaction by anyone of the parties.
of the Constitution—Evidence—Further evidence—Application to adducefurther evidence after judgment was reserved—Refused, subject to the Court's right to call for further evidence later, if found necessary, while considering judgment. Practice—Further evidence—See supra. The facts sufficiently appear in the decision of the Court. Application. Application for the re-opening of the hearing of a recourse after judgment was reserved on the 8th January, 1970, in order to put before the Court certain further evidence. 72 L. Clerides, .for the-Applicant." ··../ 1970 Mar. 4 . „ Ί If G. Tornaritis, for the Respondent. 1 > ' ' ' NiCOS 1 A. Christofides,' for the Interested Party.' LAMBRAKIS Cur. adv. vult. -i The following decision,was ^delivered by:~ '. . ' · • . • . ! J , ι" .-J -r .. Such evidence consists, first, of the texts 'of two Greek legislative enactments, Decree 3379/55 and Law 4372/20. , Actually, counsel for the Respondent.and'for'the-Interested Party have, all along;'during the hearing, been trying to*put in, as part of the record, the texts of these two enactments and counsel.then appearing for the Applicant strongly objected always to such a course; and, eventually, he succeeded in excluding such texts from the record of proceedings. Furthermore, it is sought, now, by counsel for the Applicant to place before the Court an apparently official statement from the Saionica University to the effect that during the academic years from 1951 to 1957 the subject of pedagogics was not being taught to students of mathematics there. Counsel appearing for the Applicant all through the hearing had ample opportunity to adduce evidence of this nature, but he has failed to do so. He only applied to be allowed to adduce it after the final addresses of counsel, on the 8th January, 1970, and I then ruled that this was too late a stage at which to grant leave for such a course. Let it be made clear, however, that what is primarily before this Court, for examination as to its validity, is the decision which is the subject-matter of the recourse. The parties to the recourse are of a secondary importance, in the 'sense that they were only heard in support or against the validity of its subject-matter. 73 (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: In this case counsel for the Applicant—, who appeared for the first time in these proceedings, as other counsel had .been- appearing for the Applicant previously— Has applied, on the 22nd January, 1970, for the re-opening of the hearing of the case, after judgment was reserved on the 8th January,'1970; he.has· done'so in order to have the opportunity to put before the Court certain further evidence. ·· v. REPUBUC COMMITTEE) 1970 Mar. 4 Nicos LAMBRAKIS v. In examining such validity this Court, acting under Article 146 of the Constitution, can go into certain matters, ex officio, and it can take cognizance of other matters only after they have been raised and established to its satisfaction by anyone of the parties. REPUBUC (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE) As I have not yet embarked upon the consideration of my judgment in this case, this is too early a stage for me to decide whether or not any documentary or other evidence, which, for one reason or another, is not before the Court at present, is related to the validity of the sub judice decision in such a manner that this Court has to seek itself to have it placed before it. I, therefore, shall not allow at present the re-opening of the hearing. The judgment remains reserved. But if, while, considering my judgment, I reach the conclusion that there is any relevant documentary or other evidence which is not before the Court, and the production of which should be ordered by the Court, for the proper exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 146, I shall not hesitate to do so. As regards costs for today, they shall be costs in the cause, but in any case not against the Respondent or the interested Party. Application refused. Order for costs as above. 74
AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.