(1987)1987February 17 (DEMETR1ADES,J] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION. SOTERISPILAVAKISANDOTHERS, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 525/83). Recourse forannulment—Nature ofproceedings—Inquisitorial—Court possesses much wider powers than in other proceedings—Recalling a witness for further cross-examination—Discretion exercised in favour of the party seeking suchrecaliing After the deponent ofan affidavit sworn inrelation tothiscase,namelyMr. 5 Avraamides, wascross-examined bycounsel ofthe respondents,the hearing wasadjourned sothatthe respondentsmaycalltheHeadoftheStatisticsDepartment as a witness, but on the day the heanng wasresumed, counsel for therespondentsapplied thatwitnessAvraamidesberecalledforfurthercrossexamination on the ground that certain facts that icame to his knowledge 1 0 required such further cross-examination Counsel fortheapplicants opposed the application Held,grantingtheapplication:
(1)Proceedingsinthefieldofadministrative law are of an inquisitonal nature and the Court ispossessed of much wider powers that inother proceedings.
(2)Inthe exercise of itsdiscretion the Court decided to allowthe recalling of the said witness Applicationgranted. Application. Application by counsel for respondents for recalling a witness 20 for further cross-examination. Ph. Valiantis, for the applicants. A. Vladimirou,for the respondents. 6 Cur.adv. vult. 15 3 C.L.R. PUavakl· and others v.Republic DEMETRIADESJ.read thefollowing ruliny. After Mr. Avraami des, who swore an affidavit in relation to this case and who, as t· its contents was cross-examined by counsel for the respondents completed his evidence, counsel for the respondents sought the 5 thehearing be adjourned so thathecould callasawitness Mr. De metriades, the Head of the Statistics Department.The case wa then adjourned but on the day the hearing was tocontinuecour sel for the respondents made an application to the Court the witness Avraamides be recalled for further cross-examination ο 10 theground thatcertain facts thatcametohis knowledge, among? othersfrom theconfidential reportswhich areinthefiles of the ap plicants and the interested parties, required the recalling of th; witness for further cross-examination. This,counsel said, was ne cessary in order thatthe Court assesses the credibility of the wii 15 ness and has the whole truth before it. Counsel for the applicants opposed the application on th ground thatas theconfidential reports files were inthepossessio of counsel for therespondentsfrom theearly stagesof these pre ceedings, he surely knew theircontentsas from then. 20 Counsel for the respondents, in his final address, infonned th· Courtthatatthetimehe was cross-examining Mr.Avraamides, th> confidential reports files were notwith him.As I note from the re cord of these proceedings, on an occasion, before the hearing c thiscase started,thehearingwas adjourned because thefiles wer· 25 notavailable. So Ifeel that Ican take the word of counsel for hi allegation. Counselfor theapplicantsfurther submitted thatifthere existei such facts, these could be given by Mr.Demetriadesinhis eviden ce. In any event, counsel said, Mr. Avraamides could only bt 30 cross-examined on the contentsof his affidavit. Proceedings inthefield of administrative law areof an inquisito rialnature and the Courtispossessed of much wider powers thai in any otherproceedings before it. Forexample, theJudge inor der toascertain thetruelegal and factual issuesof acase canre-o 35 pen itor, on his own initiative, invite the parties toargue on an is sue notraised by them. Inthe result and intheexercise of rnydiscretion, I have decide* to allow therecalling of Mr.Avraa"mides and his further cross-exa mination by counsel for the respondents. / DemetriadesJ. PUavaUsandothersv.Republic (198J Thecaseisfixed forfurther hearingon2.4.87. Mr.AvraamidestoattendtheCourtonthatdayandtherespondentsshould have availabletheirwitnessessothatthey cangive theirevidence. Applicationgranted. 5 8