← Κύπρος

clr/1986/1986_3_1523.pdf

3 C.L.R. 1985 August 28 1 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, Ρ-, A. LOIZOL , DEMETRIADES. LORIS. KOURRIS, JJ-1 THE REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS, THROUGH 1. THE. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER AND HIGHEST EDUC

Article 146

.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to challenge the decision in question of the Council of Ministers. 25 Paragraph 2 of Article 146 of the Constitution reads as follows;"Such a recourse may be made by a person whose any existing legitimate interest, which he has either as a person or by virtue of being a member of a 30 Community, is adversely and directly affected by such decision or act or omission." In our view those of the respondents who were not among the fifty best candidates on the basis of the entrance examinations possessed, nevertheless, a legitimate interest,

Article 146

.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to file their recourses, because among the 1526 35 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Republic v. Christoforou Trientafyllides P. twenty-five male candidates who were eventually ad­ mitted to the Academy for the particular academic year there were candidates who had not succeeded as well as any one of the respondents at the entrance examinations. It seems that not all the fifty candidates who were the best at the entrance examinations accepted admission to the Academy and, as there had to be admitted, in any event, in accordance with the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers, twenty-five male candidates, there were in the end admitted male candidates who at the entrance examinations had been less successful than any one of the respondents; and, thus, each one of the respondents was excluded from admission to the Academy merely because of the said decision of the Council of Ministers and, consequently. an existing legitimate interest of theirs was adversely and d'rectly affected,

Article 146.2 of the Constitution, by such decision.

They were, therefore, entitled to file their present recourses. Under Article 28.1 of the Constitution the respondents were entitled to equality of treatment by the administration as candidates for admission to the Academy; and under Article 28.2 of the Constitut'on such treatment could not have been affected by direct or indirect discrimination against the respondents on the ground of their sex, unless there existed provision to the contrary in the Constitution; and no such provision exists wh:ch cou'd be found to render valid sex discrimination in the present instance. Of course, the right of the respondents to equality of treatment did not exclude the making of reasonable distinctions (see, in this respect, inter alia. The Republic ν Arakian,

(1972)3 C.L.R. 294, Anastassiou v. The Repu­ blic,
(1977)3 C.L.R. 91, Angelides v. The Republic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 774 and Hjiloatmou v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041). 35 In the present instance, however, we are satisfied that there did not exist any justification whxh would render reasonable the distinction on the ground of sex between male and female candidates regarding admission to the Paedagogical Academy which was made by the sub judice 4β decision of the Council of Ministers, and. consequently. 1527 Triantafyllides P. Republic v. Christoforou
(1986)we have to hold that such decision should be annulled as being in violation of both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28 of the Constitution; and we might add that we find that the case of Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 60 L. Ed. 2d 870, which has been relied on 5 by counsel for the appellants as supporting the sex discrimination entailed by the sub judice dec:sion of the Council of Ministers is clearly distinguishable from the present case. Since we have annulled rne said decision of the Council of Ministers for the above reasons, we have decided that it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the issue of whether or not it violated the right to education of the respondents under Article 20.1 of the Constitution. 10 In the light of the foregoing this appeal fails and is 15 dismissed; but in view of the novelty of the issues raised we have decided not to make any order as to its costs. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. 1528

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

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