clr/1988/1988_1_743.pdf

(1983)1 C.L.R. 856. Civil Procedure — Language in Judicial proceedings and of documents servedin respect thereto — History and practice. 20 Theappellants,whoareArmenians,appliedtosetasidethewritof summonsserveduponthemonthegroundthatthesamewasdrafted in the Greek language, whereas, in virtue of 0.58 of the Civil Procedure Rules,it shouldhave been draftedinEnglish. It must be noted that the appellants know the Greek language., whereas theydo notknow the Englishlanguage. 25 The trialcourt dismissedtheapplication. Hence thisappeal. 743 Kazan<yianv. Ellfaildes

(1988)0 58 of theCivil ProcedureRulesdeals with thelanguage usedin Court Rule 1provides as follows •1 Subject to rule 3 of this Order,any documentserved in Cyprusshall,ifserved onaGreekspeaking person,be inGreek and and if servec on a Turkish speaking person,be inTurkish, and inallothercases be inEnglish· 5 Held, dismissing the appeal (A)PerSawides, J ,Dememades,J concurnng

(1)The appellants were «Greek speaking» and capable of understandingGreekandthereforeinthelightofprovisionsof0 58, 10 r 1which expressly refers to«Greekspeaking» and«Turkish speaking» litigants, and not «Greeks» and «Turks», we have reached the conclusion thatthewrit of summonswas properlyserved on them

(2)This case is distinguishable from the case of Typographiki Ekdohki Etena Proodos Ltd ν Pavhu andAnother

(1987)1C LR 15 529 in that in the said case the defendant on whom the writ of summons was served was neither a Greek speaking or a Turkish speaking person butonlyanEnglish speakingperson (B)PerStylianides,J Thetransitional provisionsof Article 189of the Constitution and Law51/65 andtheKoumi casesimply allowed 20 onthebasis of the doctnne ofnecessity,theuseofEnglish -a foreign language Thenonuse,however, of thatlanguageinanydocuments tobe served intheRepublic, isneithercontrary toArticle 189,norto Law 51/65

(3)Order58 should be readsubject toArticles 1,3 1and3 4 and 2 5 189 of the Constitution and Law 51/65 has tobe given effect inthe light of the practice*dunng thefive years' transitionalperiod from Independence Appeal dismissedwithcosts 30 Cases referred to Typographiki Ekdohki Etena Proodos Ltd ν Pavhu and Another

(1987)1C L R 529, Koumi ν Kortan

(1983)1C LR 856 Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the decision of the DistnctCourt 3 5 of Nicosia (S Nicolaides,DJ ) datedthe 10th March, 1987 (Action *See referenceto suchpracticeatρ 756 744 1C U R . KuandJUn v. EIHnkles No. 11550/85) whereby their application to set aside the service upon them of the writ of summons on the ground that it was in Greek and notinEnglishwasdismissed. 5 A. Devledian iw'ft N.Andreou, for the appellants. A. Magos withA. Paschalides,forthe respondents. Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ.:Thejudgment oftheCourt(Demetriades,J. and Sawides, J.) will be delivered by Mr.Justice Sawides. Mr. Justice Stylianides willdeliver a separate judgment. 10 SAWIDES J: This is an appeal against the decision of the District Court of Nicosia (S. Nicolaides, D.J.) dismissing an application on behalf of the appellants for an order of the Court setting .aside the service upon the appellants of the writ of summons inthe above action for irregularityand/or irregularityin 15 the issue of the writ of summons on the ground that the said writ was in Greek whereas in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rulesitshould have been in English. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The respondents issued a writ of summons against the 20 appellants inActionNo. 11550/85 ofthe DistrictCourtof Nicosia claiming £16,000.- as damages for breach by the appellants of a contract dated 17th January, 1985 and/or as a sum due by the appellants to respondents by virtue of an agreement and/or as damages for breach by the appellants of the terms of a written 25 agreement dated 17thJanuary, 1985. The appellants and the respondents were partners in a partnership operating under the business name «Renata shoes». On or about January, 1982, the respondents brought against appellants action No.200/82 claiming the dissolution of the 30 partnership and its winding up, the taking of accounts and damages. Inthecourseof the hearing of theaction the partiesreached an agreement which wasproduced inCourtand on thebasisofsuch agreement the terms of which had been agreed the action was 35 withdrawn. 745 S a w i d e s J. Kazandjtan v. EUinldes

(1988)Itistheallegation oftherespondentsthattheappellantsfailed to comply with the said agreement and as a result they instituted action No.11550/85 against the appellants. Copy of the writof summons in Greek was served on both appellants. Counsel for the appellants by application dated 3rd March, 1986, moved the Court to set aside the service of the writ of summonson theappellants onthe ground thatthesaidwritwasin Greek, alanguageforeign totheappellants,whowereArmenians, whereas inaccordance with theCivilProcedure Rulesithad tobe in English. 5 The learned trial Judge having heard extensive argument on both sides and having gone through the contents of the affidavits sworn bybothpartiesandthevariousdocumentsattachedtothem came to the conclusion that the writ of summons had been properly served on the appellants in the Greek language. 15 According to his judgment he reached his conclusion for the following reasons: «In any case the argument of the learned counsel for applicants isasregardsthewordsin0.58 Greekspeaking and Turkish speaking as persons belonging to the Greek or 20 Turkish community. Itismadeclearandcan bededuced from the affidavit in support of the application that defendantsapplicants are Armenians members of that religious group and who by virtue of Article 2

(3)of the Constitution and law 7/1960 poll elected to belong tothe Greek community. 25 Having considered all the above and bearing in mind that the purpose of the service of writ of summons on the defendants istobringtotheirknowledgethereason forwhich theyarerequiredtoappearand thisbeinginone ofthe official languages of the Republicthe one which isbeing used bythe 30 community to which the defendants as part of a religious group elected to belong, Ifind that the writ of summons has properly been served on the defendants-applicants in the Greeklanguage.0.58shouldbeviewedasmodified inviewof the provisions of article3of the constitution.» 35 Counsel for appellants argued that the trial Court misdirected itself astothetruenature of0.58, r.1,oftheCivilProcedure Rules and wrongly decided that the writ of summons in the Greek language hasbeen properly served on the appellants-defendants 746 1 C.L.R. Kazandjlan v. EUlnides S a w i d e s J. whoareArmeniansormembersoftheArmenian Religious Group and who in any case are neither «Greek speaking» nor «Turkish speaking» persons. Also that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellants, members oftheArmenian ReligiousGroup, could 5 in all respects and for the purposes of 0.58, r.l be considered as members of the Greek community since the Armenian Religious Group has opted to belong to the Greek community. He further submitted that the trial Court wrongly interpreted the contentsof paragraphs 1and 2 of Article2 of the Constitution. 10 Counsel wentatlength todealwith the history andrightsof the Armenian community, upon which, however, we find it unnecessary toembarkaswe arenotsittinghere topronounce on the rights and privileges of the various religious groups or communitiesrecognized under theConstitution, butwithasimple 15 question astowhether the service of the writof summons on the appellants was a proper one in the circumstances of the present case. In a recent decision delivered by this court in Typographiki Ekdotiki Eteria «Proodos» Ltd. v. Pavlos Pavhu and Another 20

(1987)1C.L.R. 529 and in which two of the members of this Bench namely Mr. Demetriades and myself were sitting, we had the opportunity of expounding on the provisions of 0.58 of the Civil Procedure Rules concerning service of the writof summons on persons who are neither «Greek speaking» nor 25 «Turkishspeaking»andweconcludedinthatcaseinthelightofthe evidence before usthat inview ofthe fact that defendant 2 inthat case was neither a «Greek speaking» nor a «Turkish speaking» person, service of the writ of summons in Greek on her was not proper serviceunder 0.58,r.1 and ordered thesettingasideof the 30 service of the writ of summons on defendant 2, an English speaking person. 0.58 ofthe CivilProcedure Rules dealswith the language used in Court. Rule 1providesas follows: 35 «1. Subject to rule3 ofthisOrder, any document served in Cyprus shall, if served on a Greek speaking person, be in Greek and if served on a Turkish - speaking person, be in Turkish, and inallother casesbe in England.» 747. S a w i d e s J. Kazandjlan v. EUlnldes

(1988)In the case of Typographiki Ekdotiki Eteria Ltd. (supra) in dealing with 0.58, r.l, itwas found as follows: «The Civil Procedure Rules, 1954 previously cited as The Rules of Court, 1938, were in force long before the declaration of the IndependenceofCyprus andembodied the rules tobe followed inallmattersconcerningthepracticeand civilprocedure of theCourt. 5 The introductionof Order58 was obviously necessitated by the recognition during the British Rule of the fact of the existence of the two main languages prevailing inCyprus and 10 used by the majority of the population which consisted of members of either of the two communities of the Island, Greeks and Turks. The English language was to be used in cases where service was to be effected on parties who were neither Greek-speaking nor Turkish-speaking Cypriots but 15 belonged to any other class of people speaking a foreign language. English was at the time a language which was mostly spoken by all foreigners and which was the official language. This was the reason for the provision in the rules that service of documents on defendants who were neither 20 Greek-speaking norTurkish speaking should be in English. The said Rules of Courtremained in force by virtue of the Rules of Court (Transitional Provisions) 1960, issued by the HighCourtatthetime,underArticle 163oftheConstitution.» Rule 3 of the 1960 Rules, reads as follows:- 25 '

1. Τηρουμένωντων διατάξεων τ ο υ Συντάγματος, π α ς κατά την ττροηγουμένην της ημέρας ανεξαρτησίας ισχύων διαδικαστικός κανονισμός, πίναξ δικαστικών τελών και η εν τοις δικαστηρίοις ακολουθούμενη και νόμω καθοριζομένη πρακτική και δικονομία(Practice 30 and procedure) θ α εξακολουθούν να ισχύουν μέχρις ου τ ρ ο π ο π ο ι η θ ο ύ ν διά μεταβολής, προσθήκ ; ή καταργήσεως, δυνάμει διαδικαστικούκανονισμού και θα ερμηνεύονται και θα εφαρμόζωνταιμετάτοιούτων μ ε τ α τ ρ ο π ώ ν καθ' ο μέτρονείναιτ ο ύ τ οα ν α γ κ α ί ο ν π ρ ο ς 35 συμμόρφωσιν π ρ ο ςταςδιατάξεις τ ο υ Συντάγματος. (Subject to the provisions of the Constitution any rule of court, schedule of courtfees and the practice and procedure 748 1 C.L.R. 5 Kazandjlan v. ElHnides S a w i d e s J. defined by law and followed inthecourts which were in force on the day preceding the day of independence willcontinue to apply until they are amended by alteration, addition or repeal, on the basis of a rule of court and will be interpreted and,applied with such changes as far as this is necessary for compliance with the provisions of the Constitution'). Paragraphs 1and 4 of Article 3 of the Constitution, read as follows: 10 15 Ί . The official languages of the Republic are Greek and Turkish.
2. Judicial proceedings shall be conducted or made and judgments shall be drawn up in the Greek language if the parties are Greek, in the Turkish language if the parties are Turkish, and in both the Greek and Turkish if the parties are Greek and Turkish. The official language or languages to be used for such purposes inall othercases shall be specified by theRules of Courtmadeby theHighCourtunderArticle 163.' Under Article 189 the following provision is made:- 20 'Notwithstanding anything in Article 3 contained, for a period offiveyears after thedateof the comingintooperation of thisConstitution(a) all laws which under Article 188 will continue to be in force may continuetobe in the English language; 25 (b) the English language may be used in any proceedings before any Courtinthe Republic' On 9th September, 1965, a law entitled The Laws and Courts (Text and Proceedings) Law, 1965, Law No.51 of 1965 was enacted,the preamble of which reads as follows:- 30 Whereas thetranslation of thetext of all the Laws in force has notbecome possible until today: And whereas inthecircumstancesthetemporary legislative regulation on certain matters relating totheprocedure before the Courts has become necessary: Therefore theHouseof Representatives enactsas follows:' 35 Under section 3 of the said Law, provision is made authorizing theAttomey-General of theRepublic tolook into 749 S a w i d e s J. Kazandjlan v. ElHnldes

(1988)andsupervise the translation of the English text of thelawsin force atthecoming intooperationof the law andthesaid laws remained in force until their translation became possible. Furthermore, under section 4, the following provision was made: 5 'Ανεξαρτήτως της διατάξεως οιουδήποτε νόμου και μέχρις ου γίνη εττί του προκειμένου άλλη νομοθετική πρόνοια π ά σ α ενώπιον οιουδήποτε δικαστηρίου διαδικασία θ α εξακολούθηση να διεξάγηται εις οιανδήποτε μέχρι τούδε εν χρήσει εν τοις δικαστηρίοις 10 γλώσσαν.» (Notwithstanding the provision of any law and until the enactment of any other law on the matter, any procedure before any court will continue to be conducted in any of the languages used in the courts until today'). Theobject of theintroductionof Article 189 andthe further reasons which led totheneedof theenactmentof Law 51/65, have been expounded by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Koumi v. Kortari

(1983)1 C.L.R. 856, at pp. 859, 860 where we readthe following: 20 Law 51/65 has now been repealed by Law 67/88 (a law to provide about the official language of the Republic) with effect as from 16th August, 1989 after which allCourtproceedings shall be conducted in the official languages of the Republic, thatis,Greek and Turkish. As from 16th August, 1989, it is pertinent that as a 25 result of the enactment of Law 67/88, 0.58 of the Rules of Court should be amended accordingly. We wish, however, to observe that the present appeal has to be determined on the basis of the law as itstood at the material time. Ithas been thecontention of counsel for therespondents, inthe 30 present case, that the appellants, though Armenians, were, nevertheless, «Greek speaking» carrying on their business transactions in Greek. He drew our attention to the fact that the partnership agreement concluded between the parties was in Greek as well as the lease agreement which was signed by the 35 parties and all pages of which were initialled; the premises where the partnership carried its business and which belonged to respondent 2 was drawn up inGreek and was signed by appellant 2 as tenant with his wife, appellant 1, as guarantor. Also to the fact thatthe writ of summons issued in Action 200/82 for the 40 750 1 C.L.R. Kazandjlan v. Elllnldes Sawides J. dissolution of the partnership and which was served on the appellantswasinGreek, the settlement which wasreached and the terms of such settlement which were stated to the Court were recorded in Greek and the appellants never raised any objection 5 that they did not understand Greek. Though we do not agree with the reasons given by the learned trial Judge in reaching his decision to dismiss appellants' application neverthelessweagreewiththeresult reached butwith different reasoning. From the material before us, which appears 10 in the file of the case and wasproduced atthe trial, and to which our attention hasbeen drawn bycounsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that the appellants were «Greek speaking» and capable of understanding Greek and therefore in the light of the provisions of 0.58, r.l which expessly refers to «Greek 11 speaking» and «Turkish speaking» litigants and not «Greeks» and «Turks»,we have reached theconclusion thatthewritof summons wasproperly served on them. Before concluding we wish to point out that Typographiki Ekdotiki Etena «Proodos»Ltd. (supra) isdistinguishable from the 20 present case in that in the said case the defendant on whom the writ of summons was served was neither a Greek speaking nora Turkish speaking person but only an English speaking person. Intheresultthe appeal fails and ishereby dismissed withcosts. STYLIANIDESJ.: This appeal isdirected against a Decisionof 25 aJudge of the District Court of Nicosia, whereby he dismissed an application of theappellantsforanorderofthe Courtsettingaside the service upon the defendants of the writ of summons, on the ground that the said writ of summons was in Greek and not in English. 30 There isno dispute astothe facts. TheappellantsareofArmenian origin,citizensoftheRepublic. Appellants and respondents were members of a partnership, operating under the business name «Renata Shoes». The written agreements of the parties were written in the Greek language and 35 signed by them. Disputes arose and Action No. 200/82 of the District Court of Nicosia, claiming the dissolution of the partnership, accounts and damages, was instituted. The writ of summons on the defendants -appellants was in Greek language. 751 StyHanldes J. Kazandjlan v. EUinldes

(1988)Asettlement was reached, which was written again inGreek and signed by the partiesto the action. The respondents filed the present action (Action No. 11550/ 85), claiming damages for breach by the appellants of the agreement, dated 17thJanuary, 1985. 5 A copy of the writ of summons in the Greek language was served on the appellants. For the first time they applied to the Court tosetaside theserviceupon themofthewrit,onthe ground that the said writ was in Greek, whereas, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules ithad tobe inEnglish.Theapplication was 10 based on Order 58 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In a well considered Rulingthe trialJudge held that the writof summons had properly been served on the defendants in the Greek language. Counsel for the appellants very strenuously argued that the 15 matter isgoverned byOrder 58of the Civil Procedure Rules; that as his clients are Armenians, who know Greek, though their mother tongue is not Greek, copy of the writ of summons in English should have been served on them, though they do not know English. He has endeavoured to make a differentiation 20 between the communities - Greek and Turkish communities recognized under the Constitution, and the small groups: Armenians, Maronites and Latins. He relied on a Judgment in Typografiki Ekdotiki Etena «PROODOS» Ltd. v. Pavlos Pavhu and Another,

(1987)1C.L.R.

1. Finally, he submitted that the 25 trial Court wrongly construed Article3 of theConstitution, which provides for the official languages in the Republic. I consider pertinent to refer in wide strides to the history of language - the official language and the language in judicial proceedings in thiscountry since the English occupation. 30 The Island of Cyprus was part of the Ottoman Empire. Its inhabitants were mainly a Greek majority and aTurkish minority. By a Convention concluded at Constantinople on the 4th of June, 1878, the Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey assigned the Island tobe occupied andadministered by England. 35 Bya supplementary Convention, concluded at Constantinople on the 14th of August, 1878, it was. amongst other things, declared thatinassigningtheIslandofCyprustobeoccupied and administered by England, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan had 752 1C.L.R. Kazandjlanv.EMnldes Styllanides J. thereby transferred toandvestedinHerMajesty theQueen lorthe term of the occupation and no longer, full power of making laws for the Governmentof the Island in HerMajesty's name free from t the Porte's control In the exercise of such power by Order in 5 Council,theCyprus Courts of Justice Orders were made ,By reason of the outbreak of World War I between His Majesty and His Imperial Majesty the Sultan the ^,iid Convention Annus andAgreement became annulled andwere no longei nf .my foic< or effect Κ The English Sovereign thought expedient that the Island should be annexed to and should form part of His Majesty's Dominions, in order that proper provision may be made for the government and protection of thesaid Island And by the Cyprus (Annexation) Order in Council 1014 a* 15 from the 5th November.
2. the Island of Cyprus beaune pun of the Dominionsof Great Butain by Annexanon 20 This Annexation Order was conhrmed by Λ funhei Oulei in Council,The Cyprus (Annexation)AmendmentOrderinCouncil,
3. Thus this Island became a colony which as horn 1925 wa^ governed pursuant toLetters Patentof May. of 1925 On 16th of August.
4. as a result of the London andZurich Agreements and the Cyprus Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, a new State -the Republic of Cyprus -emerged from 25 the status of dependency by succession from a metropolitan country On the said date by the emancipation of the foimei British Colony of Cyprus the independent Republic of Cyprus came into being The Rules of Court.
5. as amended on 27th July. 189S 30 (Order XXIX) provided that the copy of any writ of summons or other documentgivingany person noticeof any proceeding tobe taken in any Court shall, where it is to be served in Cyprus upon any native of Cyprus, be drawn up in the language of the person on whom itis tobe served. Inall othercases itmay be drawn up 35 in the English language only, and every judgment or order of any Courtrequiredtobe drawn upandenteredshall be drawn upand enteredintheEnglish language. Where acopy of anyjudgmentor orderisrequiredby any Law, OrderinCouncilorRuleofCourtto be served in Cyprus upon any native of Cyprus it shall be 40 translated by the Registrar into the language of the person upon whom is tobe served. 753 Stylianides J. Kazandjlan v. EUlnldes

(1988)Identical provision was made by order XXIX of the Rules of Court

1. made under the Cyprus Courts of Justice Order.
2. The Civil Procedure Rules of
3. which continued in force until Independence, provided asfollows: 5 «ORDER
4. LANGUAGE. 1 Subject to rule 3 of thisOrder, any document served in Cyprus, shall, if served on a Greek-speaking person, be in Greek, and if served on a Turkish-speaking person, be in 10 Turkish,andinallothercasesbeinEnglish. 2.Judgmentandordershallbe enteredinEnglish.IfaGreek orTurkish translation of a judgment or order isrequired for suivice in Cyprus, it shall be made by the Registrar of the Court 15 3 Documents for the use of the Court presented by advocates who are barristers shall be in English. And documents intended foranysuchadvocatesmay,even where the client for whom he isacting isGreek or Turkish-speaking, be in English. Advocates other than barristers may bring 20 themselves under thisrulebygiving noticetothat effect tothe Registrar of the Court before which they appear, who shall post itup inthe registry for public information.» Upon change of sovereignty there is a community of Law between the former colony and the new State. The bulk of the 25 legal system of the predecessor State is left unaffected by the change So much only of the Law of the predecessor State as is repugnant to,orinconsistent with,thatofthesuccessorState does not survive the change of sovereignty and so much as is not repugnant does. Article 188 of the Constitution embodied the principle of continuity of the legal system upon the change of sovereignty. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to certain transitional provisions, to which Ishall refer, all Laws in force on the date of the coming into operation of the Constitution, until 35 amended whether by way ofvariation, addition or repeal, by any Law made under the Constitution, continued in force on or after theestablishment oftheRepublicandareconstrued from thatdate 754 30 1 C.L.R. Kazandjlan v. EUlnldes Stylianldes J. and applied with such modification as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Constitution «Law» includes any public instrument made before the date of the coming into operation byvirtue ofsuch Law 5 Article 163of the Constitution empowered the High Court (the predecessor of the present Supreme Court) to make Rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure ofthe High Court and of any other Court established by or under the Constitution Transitional Provisions were made inthe Constitution 10 Article 190 provided that subject to certain provisions any Court -meaning subordinate Court -existing immediately before the dateofthecomingintooperationoftheConstitution shall,as from that date and until a new law is made regarding the constitution of thecourtsofthe Republicand inanyevent notlater 15 than four months from that date, continue to function as hitherto Article 189 provided «Notwithstanding anything in Article 3 contained for a period of fiveyearsafter thedateofthecominginto operation of this Constitution 20 (a) all laws which under Article 188 will continue to be in force may continue tobe inthe English language (b) the English language may be used in any proceeding;. before any court in the Republic» Article 3 of the Constitution provides for the languages of the 25 new State The material paragraphs of thisArticle for the present case are paragraphs 1 and 4 The controlling paragraph of the whole section isparagraph 1,which reads «1 The official languages of the Republic are Greek and Turkish» 30 35 Paragraph 4 «4 Judicial proceedings shall be conducted or made and judgments shall be drawn up in the Greek language if the parties are Greek, in the Turkish language if the parties are Turkish, and in both the Greek and the Turkish languagesif the parties are Greek and Turkish The official language or languages tobe used forsuchpurposes inallothercasesshall 755 Stylianides J . Kazandjlan v. Elltnldes

(1988)be specified by the Rules of Court made by the High C O L Ι under Article 163 » T h e provisions of these paragraphs had to be readsubject to the Transitional Piovision of Article 189 wheieby the English language might be used It is not obligatory to be used during the 5 five years transitional period It issimply a permissive provision It permitb to be used bul n cannot be used to the exclusion of the official languages The High Court on 12th December

1. in virtue of the power vested in it by Article Wvi of ihe Constitution, issued the Rules of 10 Court (Transiiional Piovisions) 1960 the material part of which is O l d e r 3 which reads as lollows "1η μ ο υ μ ί viov Ί(ον διοπαζεΐον τ ο υ Σ υ ν τ ά γ μ α τ ο ς , π α ς κπτα την αμέσως προηγουμένην της ημέρας ανίί,ίίρι ηοιας ημίμαν ιοχυοον δ ι α δ ι κ α σ τ ι κ ό ς 15 κ α ν ο ν ι σ μ ο ί , , πιναί, δ ι κ α σ τ ι κ ώ ν τ ε λ ώ ν κ α ι η εν τ ο ι ς δ ι κ α ο τ η ρ ι ο ι ς α κ ο λ ο υ θ ο ύ μ ε ν η και ν ό μ ω καθοριζομένη π μ α κ ι ι κ η κ α ι δ ι κ ο ν ο μ ί α (practice and procedure) θ α Ϊ έ,ακολουΟουν ν α ι σ χ ύ ο υ ν μέχρις ο υ φ ο π ο π ο ι η θ ο ύ ν δ ι α μ ε τ α β ο λ ή ς , π ρ ο σ θ ή κ η ς ή κ α τ α ρ γ ή σ ε ω ς , δ υ ν ά μ ε ι 20 δ ι α δ ι κ α σ τ ι κ ο ύ κανονισμού και θ α ερμηνεόωνται και θ α ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ω ν τ α ι μ ε τ ά τοιούτων μετατροπών κ α θ ' ο μί ι ρ υ ν ί ιναι ι ο υ τ ο α ν α γ κ α ι ο ν π~μος σ υ μ μ ό ρ ψ ω σ ι ν προς ι α ς δ ι ά τ α ξ η ς τ ο υ Συντάγματος » («3 Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, every 25 Rule of Court, table of Court fees and the practice and proceduie followed by the Courts and presetibed by law in force on the day immediately before the day of Independence will continue to be in force until amended whether by variation, addition or repeal, by Rules of Court and shall be 3 0 interpreted and applied with such modifications that are necessry for compliance with the provisions of the Constitution >·) Consonant to the provisions of Article 158 of the Constitution. the Courts of Justice Law. 1960 (Law No 14/60) was enacted and 3 5 came into operation on 17th December. 1960 That Law repealed the Courts of Justice Law, Cap
2. of the 1959 edition of the Laws of Cyprus, the Courts of Justice (Extension of Jurisdiction) Law (No 6/60) and section 11 of the Civil Procedure Law. Cap 6 By this new Law the Distnct Courts and other Courts of the Republic 4 0 756 1 C.L.R. Kazandjlan v. EllinJdes Styllanldes J . were established withjurisdiction andpowersonciviland criminal jurisdiction. Section 69 of the Courts ofJustice Law No. 14/60 provides:5 «TheHigh Court maymakeRules(inthisLawreferred toas 'Rules of Court") to be published in the official gazette of the Republic for the better carrying out of this Law into effect.» Thepowerandjurisdiction ofthe High Courtwereconferred by Law No.33/64 on the Supreme Court of Cyprus. No new Civil Procedure Rules of Court were made either bythe High Court or 10 bythe Supreme Court. The Rules of Court in force on the date before Independence are subject to the provisions of the Constitution in force and continue to be applied by the Courts, under the Rules of Court (Transitional Provisions) of 1960 made by the High Court as 15 aforesaid. I have referred to the history of the language in judicial proceedings and ofthe documents tobe served in this country. As from the commencement of the British occupation the official language was that of the Imperial Government 20 administering the Island - English. The Cyprus Gazette was published in English (Number 1 was issued on 5th November, 1878). The Bills were published in English and were only translated for the use of the native elected members of the Legislative Council during the existence of the Body. All Laws 25 were published in English. All Orders, Ordinances and Rules of Court were published in English. Therewasadistinction intheRulesbetween thenativesand the others. In 1927 the natives were separated into Greek-speaking and 30 Turkish-speaking and in all other cases the English language, as theofficial languageoftheMetropolis,wasapplied peremptorily. In 1933 the Advocates Law was radically change by Law No. 20/33andonlybarristersandsolicitorsoftheUnited Kingdom and Ireland were permitted to practice as advocates in the colony of 35 Cyprus.Thiswasone of the harsh and suppressive measures, the aftermath of the events that shook the Island in October,
3. commonlyknown inthiscountryas«Octovriana».Themain object 757 Styllanides J· Kazandjlan v. Elllnldes

(1988)of the Law was to serve the political ends of the Colonial Government. In 1938 the new Rules of Court repeated the 1927 provision about thelanguage ofdocumentstobe servedand paragraph 3of Order58providedfurtherthatdocumentsfortheuseoftheCourt, 5 presented by advocates whoare barristers, shall bein English and advocates other than barristers might bring themselves under this Rule. Itmaybestated, however, thatfrom 1928until 1938theEnglish Common Law was introduced en mass into this country - (the 10 Criminal Code 1928.»the Contract Law 1930, the Civil Wrongs Law 1stJanuary. 1933). The colonial status of Cyprus came to an end on 16th August,

1. A new state internationally recognized, a member of the United Nations with sovereignty and supremacy came intobeing. 15 The official languages are by express constitutional provision the Greek and Turkish. By constitutional command judicial proceedings shall be conducted or made and judgments shall be drawn in the Greek and Turkish languages. And the last part of paragraph 4 of Article 20 3 is significant for the determination of this case; the official language, or languages to be used for such purposes in all other cases shall be specified by the Rules of Court, made by the High Court, under Article
2. The English language isnotanyoftheofficial languages.Official 25 language or languages refer tothecontrolling paragraph 1,which sets out the official languages: Greek and Turkish. As from Independence Day. the advocates in this country are graduates of various Law schools of a number of countries. The Legal Board has recognized a plethora of Law Degrees. The 30 practice followed duringthe fiveyearsofthetransitionalperiod by theadvocates, barristers, orgraduates ofLawschoolsof whatever country did not adhere to the provision of Order 58 of the preexisting Rules of Court. Greek, Turkish and English were invariably used without distinction. Writs of summonses were 35 served in Greek or Turkish and occasionally on English-speaking persons in English. No more the documents for the use of the Court, presented byadvocateswhoarebarristers, were invariably in English. Mostof them were eitherinGreek orTurkish. 758 1 C.L.R. Kazandjlan v. ElUnldes StyUanides J. On 9th September,
3. the Laws and Courts (Text and Procedure) Law; 1965, (Law No. 51/65) was enacted. It is a temporary legislation. Initspreamble thefollowing is recited:5 «Whereas it has not become possible until today the translation of the next of ail the laws in force: And whereas as from the circumstances it has become necessary the temporary legislative regulation of certain matters relating totheprocedure before theCourts: 10 Now, therefore, the House of Representatives enacts as follows:» In section 3 theAttorney-General of the Republic is authorized totake care andsupervise thetranslation of the English text of the Laws in force. The material part for this case is section 4, which reads as 15 follows:- 20 25 «
4. Ανεξαρτήτως της ;διατάξεως οιουδήποτε νόμου και μέχριςουγίνηεπίτουπροκειμένουάλληνομοθετική πρόνοια π ά σ α ενώπιον οιουδήποτε δικαστηρίου διαδικασία θα εξακολούθηση να διεξάγηται εις οιανδήποτεμέχρι τούδε εν χρήσει εν τοις δικαστηρίοις γλώσσαν.» («
5. Notwithstanding the provision of any law and untilthe enactment of other law on the matter all proceedings before anyCourtwillcontinuetobe conductedinany language used inthe Courts hitherto.») In Civil Action No. 1564/79, before the District Court of Limassol, a barrister filed the statement of claim in English. Application was made for the dismissal of the action, on the ground thatthe English language could not be used. The District 30 Court of Limassol struck out the statement of claim and directed that the plaintiffs should file and deliver a new statement of claim inthecorrectlanguage. Appeal was takenandtheCourtof Appeal in Koumi v. Kortari

(1983)3 C.L.R. 856, came tothe conclusion that Law No. 51/65 is valid on the basis of the doctrine of 35 necessity, in view of the temporary nature of the Law and the necessity which it has been enacted to meet. It held that the English language could be used onthebasisof Law No. 51/65, as 759 Styllanldes J. Kazandjlan v. EUlnides

(1988)the English language was one of the languages used in the pmceedings in the Courtsof theRepublic Itconcluded,however with thefollowing «It may also be pointed out that this Law does not in any way exclude the use of the Greek or Turkish languages in 5 Court proceedings and matters relevant thereto and which have in practice been extensively used. Itwas, therefore, in view of itsprovisions wrong tofind as irregular thefiling otthe Statement of Claim in English » Itwa<= not said in Koumi case thattheEnglish language shall be 10 used. They did not say that, as counsel for the plaintiffs was a bainstei documents presented by him should be in English as provided in Rule 3 of Order 58 of the Rules preexisting the 12th December. 1960. when the Transitional (Rules of Court) came into operation The ratio decidendi is that the English language 15 may be used and no more The authority and mandategiven to the Attorney-General for the translation of the English text of the Laws was not performed until today After the lapse of 23 years, the House of Representatives enacted Law 67/88 The preamble of this Law 20 reads«ΕΠΕΙΔΗ σ ύ μ φ ω ν α με το Ά ρ θ ρ ο 3 τ ο υ Συντάγματος της ΚυπριακήςΔημοκρατίαςοι επίσημες γλώσσες της Δημοκρατίας είναι ηελληνική και η τουρκική. ΚΑΙ ΕΠΕΙΔΗη μεταβατική περίοδος τωνπέντεχρόνων 25 με βάση το Ά ρ θ ρ ο 189

(6)τ ο υ Συντάγματος της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας έχει α π ό εικοσαετίας και πλέον λήξει και δεν είναι επιθυμητό να συνεχιστεί η κατάσταση π ο υ δημιούργησε ο περί Νόμων και Δικαστηρίων (Κείμενον και Διαδικασία) Νόμος τ ο υ 30 1965 » The material parts of the Law are sections 2 and 3 «

1. Οι επίσημες γλώσσες της Δημοκρατίας είναι η ελληνική και η τουρκική.
2. Ο περί Νόμων και Δικαστηρίων (Κείμενον και 35 Διαδικασία) Νόμος του 1965 καταργείται α π ό τη 16η Αυγούστου, 1989.» 760 1 C.L.R. Kazandjlan v. EUinides Styllanldes J. («2 The official languages of the Republic are Greek and Turkish 3 The Laws and Courts (Textand Procedure)Law of 1965 is lepealed as from 16th August 1989 ») 5 Section 2 is no more than a repetitionof paragraph 1of Article 3 of theConstitution In Typografikt Ekdohki Etena «PROODOS» Ltd ν Pavlos Pavhu and Another,

(1987)1 C L R 529, three Judges of this Court duly constituting the Appeal Court in civil cases upheld a 10 Decision of an Acting DistrictJudge of Nicosia whereby service of thewrit ofsummonsof defendant 2,anEnglish-speaking Irish was set aside on the ground thatthewrit of summons served on himin theRepublic inAction No 5519/85 of the DistrictCourtof Nicosia was in Greek InthatJudgment reference was made to Rule 3 of 15 the Rules of Court (Transitional Provisions) I960 the constitutional provision on languages inArticle 3 and Law 51/65 and to the Judgment in Koumi ν Kortan case (bupia) and concluded- 20 «Beanng ,n mind the legal position as above and the fact thatOrder58 rule 1still continuestobe inforce we tindtha* the trialJudge was right inreaching his decision and ordering thesetting aside of theservice of thewritofsummons in Greek on defendant 2 an English-speaking person » The transitional provisions of Article 189 and Law 51/65 and 25 the Koumi case simply allowed on the basis of the doctrine of necessity the use of English a foreign language The non use however, of that language in any documents to be served in the Republic, is neithercontrary toArticle 189 norto Law 51/65 The reasoning behind theJudgment TypografikiEkdotiki Etena 30 «PROODOS»Ltd, isthatthedefendant No 2inthatactionwas an English-speaking person In this country, which has become a place of tourism and to which people ofvanous nationalitiesandvanous Unguages come who may commit torts and may enter into contracts and in other 35 acts, which may lead to civil proceedings how can the English language - foreign tomost of them and notofficial language of the 761 Styllanldes J. Kazandjlan v. EUlnldes

(1988)country - be of obligatory use? We have many persons from various countries, Arab-speaking, French-speaking, Germanspeaking, Italianspeaking, etc. The appellantsin thiscase areofArmenianorigin,citizensof the Republic, who, pursuant to constitutional provision and under Γ; Law 7of 1960, elected tobe members of the Greekcommunityof the Republic. They do not know English, but they know Greek. The argument advanced that service on them of the copy of the writ should be in English, a language other than the official languages, isabsurd. Theobject of service of copy of thewrit isto 10 make known to a defendant that judicial proceedings have commenced against him, andcommandhimtoappearbefore the Court;tobring tohisknowledge theclaim of his adversary inorder to enable him to admit or desist the claim. The English language does notserve any of these purposes, letalonethatitisbeyong the 15 object of the Constitution. Under theTransitionalProvisions ofArticle 189(b)theuseof the English language by a willing plaintiff was allowed. This was the effect, also of Law 51/

1. It should not be forgotten thatthe main and principal Article of 20 the Constitution is Article 1, that the State of Cyprus is an Independent andSovereign Republic. I do not pronounce at this stage, as it was not raised and not argued, whether 28 years after the establishment of the Republic the existence of Law 51/65 satisfies the prerequisites of the 25 doctrine of necessity, as is set out in TheAttorney-Genera! of the Republic v. Mustafa Ibrahim andOthers, 1964 C.L.R. 195,atpp. 265,
2. Order58 hastobe readandapplied subject tothe above quoted constitutional provisions and Law 51/65 has tobe given effect in 30 the light of the practice during the five years transitional period fromIndependence. Service of documents in the Republic in Greek, unless served on aTurkish-speaking, isvalidand unimpeachable. Inviewof the foregoing, theappeal isdismissed with costs here 35 and intheCourt below. DEMETRIADES, J.: In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissedwithcosts. 762