3 CL.R. 1982 February 25 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION LOIZOS PHILIPPOU SEPOS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR, Respondent. (Case No. 169/79). Elections—Presidential elections—Alleged prevention of applicant from entering his candidature—His remedymightpossibly beby wayof an election petitionandnot by wayof a recourse under Article 146.1 of the Constitution. 5 10 15 Theapplicant bymeans of a lecourse under Article 146of the Constitution sought a judgment obliging the Piesident of the Republic to implement an agieement which was allegedly entered into between the Minister of Interioi and the applicant and as a result of which the applicant decided not to become a candidate foi the presidential election which took place on 19th Febiuary 1978. Held, that evenif theapplicant'sversion, whichappearsto be unfounded and absurd, was to be treated as correct, the claim which he makes in his present recourse is obviously entirely outside the ambit of Article 146of the Constitution and, therefore, it has to be dismissed. Application dismissed. Recourse. Recourse for a judgment obliging the President of the Re20 public to implement an agreement which was allegedly entered into between the Minister of Interior and the applicant and as 1065 Sepos v. Republic
(1982)a result of which applicant decided not to become a candidate for the Presidential election which took place on 19.2.
- Applicant appeared in person. J?. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur, adv.vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP. read the followingjudgment. Inthiscase the applicant seeks, by means of the present recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution, a judgment obliging the President of the Republic to implement an agreement which was 10 allegedly entered into between the Minister of Interior and the applicant and as a result of which the applicant decided not to become a candidate for the presidential election which took place on 19th February
- The applicant contends that sincethe aforementioned alleged 15 agreement has not been implemented he was prevented by deception from entering his candidature for the said election. It has been alleged by the applicant that by virtue of the agreement in question the Government undertook, in particular, to abolish interest on loans and that subsequently it has 20 failed to do so. Therespondent Minister of Interior deniestheveracity of the version of the applicant. In any event, even if the applicant's version, which appears to meto beunfounded and absurd,wastobetreated ascomet, 25 the claim which he makes in his present recourse is obviously entirely outsidetheambit ofArticle146oftheConstitution and, therefore, it has to be dismissed. If, conceivably, it could besaid that theapplicant was,byan illegal practice on the part of the respondent, prevented from 30 entering hiscandidature for thepresidential election in question his remedy, if any, might possibly be by way of an election petition against the outcome of the said election, and not by way of the present recourse under Article
- In the light of the foregoing this recourse fails and it is dis- 35 missed with costs against the applicant. Recourse dismissed with costs against applicant. 1066 5