3 C X . Β. 1986 November19 rTRlANTAFYLUDES.Ρ] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION DEMETRAKISPIERIDES. Applicant, 1 V. T H E REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS. T H R O U G H 1.THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS, 2. THEMINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONSAND WORKS, Respondents. (CaseNo. 329/W Recourse forannulment — Re-opening of heanng forthe purpose ofadducing further evidence,application for— Inthe circumstances and bearingin mind the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings and the wide power of an administrative Court toreceive evidence, theapplication would begranted 5 Thefactsofthis case sufficientlyappear inthejudgment ofthe Court Application granted. Casesreferred to' Chnstouv. Republic
(1969)3 C L R 134 Application. 10 Application by Counsel for the applicant for an order of the· Court for the re-opening of the hearing so thattheapplicant may adduce further evidence. K.Michaelides, for the applicant. A. Vassiliades, forthe respondents. 15 /V.Papaefstathiou, for the interested party. Cur. adv. vult TRIANTAFYLUDES P. readthe following decision.Before the delivery, onthe 28th June 1986,ofthe reserved judgment inthis case counsel for the applicant filed, on the4th June 1986, an 1807 TrtantafyOlde*P. Pferide·v.Republic
(1987)applicationseekinganorderoftheCourtforthere-openingofthe hearing sothat the applicant mayadduce further evidence. The said application is supported by an affidavit swom by George Vryonides, whoisthe person managingtheaffairs of the applicant in Cyprus. He has swom that such application has provedtobenecessaryintheinterestsofjusticesincetheapplicant has to adduce further expert evidence in view of the conflicting affidavits which have already been filed by the parties in the present proceedings. 5 The re-opening of the hearing issought, too, because counsel 10 fortheapplicantwishestocross-examineMariosMeletiou,whois a civilengineer inthe service ofthe interested party,inrelation to the contents of hisaffidavit dated the 31st May 1984.Asa matter of fact on the 2nd June 1984, before judgment was reserved, counsel for the applicant stated that he wished to cross-examine 15 affiant Meletiou and on the 14th June 1985, after the Court had heard oral arguments supplementing the written addresses of counsel for the parties, the Court reserved its judgment on the understanding that if itcame to appear that the outcome of the case mightbe affected bydisputed issuesof fact thenthehearing 20 would be re-opened soasto afford tocounsel the opportunity to cross-examine, if they wished, any affiant, including affiant Meletiou. Havingheard counselinsupport of, andagainst,theapplication for there-opening of thehearingofthiscaseand bearinginmind 25 the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings in a recourse under Article 146oftheConstitution, suchasthepresentone,aswellas the wide powers which an administrative Court has to receive evidence for the determination of the issuesbefore it{see,in this respect, inter alia, Christouv.TheRepublic,
(1969)3C.L.R. 134, 30 148, 150) I have decided, in the exercise of any relevant discretionary powers, toreopen the hearing of thiscase in order to allow counsel for the applicant to adduce, by way of affidavit, further expert other evidence, and, then, in tne light of such evidence, Ishall decide whether to allow the production of any 35 further evidencebyanyotherpartyorwhethertopermitthecrossexamination of any oneof theaffiants, includingaffiant Meletiou. Application granted. 1808