3 C.L.R. 1982 January 21 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., L. Loizou, HADJIANASTASSIOU, A. Loizou, MALACHTOS, DEMETRIADES, JJ.] IN THEMATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION ALECOS CONSTANTmiDES, Applicant, v. THE ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY OF CYPRUS, Respondent. (Case No. 5/80). 5 10 Practice—Recourse for annulment—Evidence—Affidavit evidence— Admissibility—Principles applicable—Affidavits admitted in evidence subject to the relevance of their contents being established to thesatisfaction of the Court inthecourseof the further hearing of the recourse—And subject to counsel for the other parties being given an adequate opportunity to test their accuracy by cross-examination. Counsel appearing for the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation, which wasan interested party in these proceedings, has placed before the Court, in connection with the sub judice issues in this case, two affidavits and counsel for the applicant has objected to their admissibility in evidence. On the-objection: 15 20 Held, that one of the guiding factors to be applied in considering theadmissibility of any evidence in a recourse for annulment is whether such evidence is reasonably relevant to,and probative of, any issue before the Court and can or cannot be of assistance to the Court in doing justice in the particular casein accordance with itsjurisdiction (seeKyriakides v. Republic, 1 R.S.C.C. 66); that, therefore, the affidavits in question are, at this stage, admissible evidence, subject to the relevance of their contents being established to the satisfaction of the Court in the course of the further hearing of this case and subject, 387 Constantinides v. E.A.C.
(1982)also, to Counsel for the applicant or counsel for any other party being given, if he so applies, an adequate opportunity to test their accuracy by cross-examination. Order accordingly. Cases referred to: 5 Kyriakidesv. Republic, 1R.S.C.C. 66; Georghiades (No. 2) v. Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 473 at p. 480; Frangoulides v. Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 531 at p.541; Malais v. Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 572 at p. 574; Frangos v. Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 312 at p. 333. 10 Ruling. Ruling on an Objection by applicant's counsel as to the admissibility of two affidavits placed before the Court by the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation which is an interested party in the above recourse. 15 P. Angelides, for the applicant. G. Arestis, for the respondent. G. Polyviou with P. Polyviou, for the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation, an interested party. N. Charalambousy Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the 20 Attorney-General of the Republic, as amicus curiae. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following ruling of the Court. Counsel appearing for the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation, which is an interested party in these proceedings, has placed 25 before the Court, in connection with the sub judice issues in the present case, two affidavits sworn, iespectiveiy, on January 14, 1982, by Evros Demetriades, the Director of the Department of Statistics and Research in the Ministry of Finance, and on January 15, 1982, by Gecige Vassiliou, the Managing Director 30 of the Middle-East Marketing Research Bureau Ltd. By means of the first affidavit it is sought to prove that in Cyprus the higher the income of a household is the higher is its expendituie on electricity; and by means of the second affidavit it is sought to establish that nearly 93% of all the house- 35 holds in Cyprus own a television set and 97% of them own at least one radio. 388 3 C.L.R. Constantinides v. E.A.C. Triantafyllides P. Counsel for the applicant has objected to the admissibility in evidence of the said two affidavits. In Kyriakides v. The Republic, 1 R.S.C.C. 66, the following were stated (at p. 69) in relation to the admission of evidence 5 in the course of the hearing of a recourse—such as the present one—under Aiticle 146 of the Constitution: 10 15 20 "With regard to the law and rules of evidence, in particular this Court, of course, will first look foi guidance to the law and rules of evidence applicable in Cyprus in respect of other'courts but whenever it deems it necessary for the ~~ pioper fulfilment of its mission under the Constitution it will not hesitate to relax or even depart from such law and rules of evidence. Without in any way wishing to prevent parties from raising any legitimate objection to the admissibility of any evidence adduced before this Court, the Couit draws their attention to the fact that one of the guiding factors to be applied inconsidering the admissibility of any such evidence is whether such evidence is leasonably relevant to, and probative of, any issue before the Court and can or cannot be of assistance to the Court in doing justice in the particular case in accordance with its jurisdiction". The Kyriakides case, supra, was followed, in this respect, in, intei alia, Georghiades (No. 2) v. The Republic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 25 473, 480, Frangoulidesv. The Republic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 531, 541, Malais v. The Republic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 572, 574, and Frangos v. The Republic,
(1970)3 C.L.R. 312, 333. In the light of the foiegoing we are of the view that the affidavits in question ate, at this stage, admissible evidence, subject 30 to the relevance of their contents being established to our satisfaction in the course of the further hearing of this case and subject, also, of course, to counsel for the applicant or counsel for any other party being given, if he so applies, an adequate opportunity to test their accuracy by cross-examina35 tion. Order accordingly. 389