← Κύπρος

clr/1973/1973_2_283.pdf

[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOIZOU, 1973 HADJIANASTASSIOU,'A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.] J_ THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, OF CYPRUS v - Τ Ή Β RfiPUBLJC Applicant, ANDREAS EVANGELOU LlASSIS ANDREAS EV

Article 156of the Constitution be applied?".

Article 156 reads as follows: " The following offences in the first instance shall be tried by a Court composed of such Judges belonging to both Communities as the High Court shall determine presided over by the President of the High Court:(

  1. a)Treason and other offences against the security of the Republic; (
  2. b)offences against the Constitution andthe Constitutional order. Providedthatintheappealfrom anydecisionofsuchCourt the High Court shall be presided over by the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court...". It is not disputed that the offence with which the Respondent has been charged isone which comeswithin the ambit of Article 156 of the Constitution and that,butforsuchArticle,theAssize Court has jurisdiction to try the offence charged. Held,

(1). In our opinion Article 156 was rendered totally inoperative by the exceptional events which preceded, and eventually led to, theenactment of the Administration of Justice (MiscellaneousProvisions) Law, 1964(Law 33/1964) and which 284 are describedinthejudgmentsdelivered in the c&scofAttorneyGeneral v. Ibrahim,1964 C.L.R. 195. 1973 Oct. 31
(2)It wasstated inthosejudgments, interalia, that the posts of the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court and of the President of the High Court had become vacant due to the aforesaid exceptional events, before the enactment of Law No. 33of 1964(supra); and wetakejudicial notice that the position continues in this respect, to be now as it was then. THE REPUBLIC
(3)So, apart from the impossibility of having a Court composed, under Article 156, of Judges "belonging to both Communities" (supra), there does not exist in office a President of theHigh Court,whowouldhaveto presideover such Court, nor doesthereexistinofficea PresidentoftheSupremeConstitutional Court whowould haveto presideattheappeal from such Court.
(4)Inthelight oftheaboveweare oftheopinion,as regards question (a)(supra), that sincebefore theenactment of LawNo. 33 of 1964 (supra) Article 156 of the Constitution (supra) was rendered completely inoperative, and as a result the relevant part of section 20
(1)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (supra) became inoperative, too, at the same time when Article 156 became inoperative, it follows that there does not arise the issueofwhetherornotthesaidpartofsection 20
(1)wasrendered inoperative by the subsequently enactment of Law No. 33 of 1964 (supra). And this answers also question (b).
(5)It follows that theAssizeCourt of Famagusta, which has reserved the said two questions, has jurisdiction to proceed to try the Respondent and that the case is remitted to it with our opinion as stated hereinabove. Order accordingly. Cases referred to: The Attorney-General of the Republic v. Ibrahim,1964 C.L.R.
  1. Question of Law Reserved. Question of Law Reserved by the Assize Court of Famagusta (Sawides, P.D.C., Demetriou, S.D.J. and Chrysostomis, D.J.) for the opinion of the Supreme Court under the provisions of section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155 upon an objection taken by counsel for the defence, at the commence285 O P CYPRUS v. ANDREAS EVANOELOU LIASSIS 1973 Oct. 31 THE REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS v. ANDREAS EVANOELOU LIASSIS ment of the trial, as to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the Respondent of the offence of preparing war against the Government of the Republic contrary to section 40 of the Criminal Code, Cap.
  2. L. Loucaides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Applicant. K. Saveriades, for the Respondent. The decision of the Court was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: On the 26th October, 1973, an Assize Court in Famagusta, at the commencement of the trial of the Respondent in respect of the offence of preparing war (contrary to section 40 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154), reserved for the opinion of this Court, under section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, two questions of law which were placed before us, by the President of the Assize Court, as follows :" On the 25th October, 1973, the accused was charged before this Court, and before pleading to the information, hiscounsel, pursuant to the provisions of section 69of Cap. 155, entered a special plea, to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction over him in its present constitution, in view of the provisions of Article 156 of the Constitution. Counsel for the Republic applied for an adjournment till this morning, to consider the point raised. This morning, Mr. Antoniades applied on behalf of the Attorney-General that the Court does state a question of law for the opinion of the Supreme Court under section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.
  3. Such point of law was framed as follows: (a) Is the part of section 20
(1)of the Courts of Justice Law No. 14/1960 safeguarding the provisions of Article 15*6of the Constitution still operative, in view of the enactment of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law No. 33/1964? (b) If the answer is in the affirmative,

Article 156of the Constitution be applied? Under the provisions of section 148

(2)of Cap. 155, the President of the Assize Court is bound to make a record 286 of the question reserved and transmit a copy thereof to the Chief Registrar. A record has been made accordingly and we hereby reserve for the determination of the Supreme Court, in accordance with the application on behalf of the Attorney-General, the following questions of law:(a) Is the part of section 20
(1)of the Courts of Justice Law No. 14/1960 safeguarding the provisions of Article 156 of the Constitution still operative, in view of the enactment of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, No. 33/1964? (b) If the answer is in the affirmative,

Article 156of the Constitution be applied?" In dealing with question (a) we must observe that the relevant part of section 20

(1)ofthe CourtsofJusticeLaw, 1960(14/60),is merely a saving clause intended to limit, in view of the provisions of Article 156 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of Assize Courts as laid down by the said section 20. Article 156 reads as follows:" The following offences in the first instance shall be tried by a Court composed of such Judges belonging to both Communities as the High Court shall determine presided over by the President of the High Court :(
  1. a)Treason and other offences against the security of the Republic; (
  2. b)offences against the Constitution and the constitutional order: Provided that in the appeal from any decision of such Court the High Court shall bepresided over bythe President of the Supreme Constitutional Court in the place of the President ofthe High Court and in sucha case the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall have all the powers vested in the President of the High Court". It is not disputed that the offence with which the Respondent has been charged is one which comes within the ambit of Article 156. Counsel for the Respondent has declared that he does not contend that in the at present prevailing circumstances it is 287 1973 Oct. 31 THE REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS V. ANDREAS EVANGELOU LIASSIS 1973 Oct. 31 THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS V. ANDREAS EVANOELOU LlASSIS feasible to fulfil therequirement ofcomposing the Court envisaged by Article 156 of Judges belonging to both " Communities", but he has asked us to hold that it is still otherwise possible to give effect to the provisions of such Article. In our opinion Article 156 was rendered totally inoperative by the exceptional events which preceded, and eventually led to, the enactment of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964 (Law 33/64), and which are described in the judgments delivered in the case of The Attorney-General v. Ibrahim, 1964 C.L.R. 195. In the judgments delivered in the Ibrahim case it was stated, inter alia, that the posts of the President of the Supreme Con- * stitutional Court and of the President of the High Court had become vacant due to the aforesaid events, before the enactment of Law 33/64; and we take judicial notice that the position continues, in this respect, to be now as it was then. So, apart from the impossibility of having a Court composed, under Article 156, of Judges belonging to both " Communities", there does not exist in office a President of the High Court, who would have to preside over such Court, nor does there exist in office a President of the Supreme Constitutional Court who would have to preside at the appeal from such Court. In the light of all the foregoing we are of the opinion, as regards question (a), that as since before the enactment of Law 33/64 Article 156 was rendered completely inoperative, and as a result the relevant part of section 20
(1)of Law 14/60 became inoperative, too, at the same time when Article 156 became inoperative, it follows that there does not arise the issue of whether or not the said part of section 20
(1)was rendered inoperative by the subsequently enacted Law 33/64. What we have already stated in this Decision answers also question (b). In conclusion, we would sum up by stating that the Assize Court in Famagusta, which has reserved the said two questions, has jurisdiction to proceed to try the Respondent and the case is remitted to it with our opinion as stated hereinabove. Orderaccordingly. 288

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.