On Wednesday, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled the law regarding the asset declarations (Pothen Esches) of state officials to be constitutional, following its referral by the President of the Republic.
Reading the unanimous decision, the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Antonis Liatsos, stated that despite the high-ranking positions of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, there is no dispute that they are not subject to judicial authority. The law does not violate the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Instead, it establishes an additional safeguard to further ensure the integrity of the institution.
The Court noted that the law promotes transparency and accountability while enhancing public trust in the institution.
It also concluded that the House of Representatives acted within its legislative powers when enacting the law in question, leaving no room for judicial intervention.
The President of the Republic had sought the Court’s opinion on whether the law, officially titled “The Law on the Submission and Examination of Asset Declarations by Certain Officials and Publicly Exposed Persons of the Republic of Cyprus,” contravened Articles 15, 61, 112, 113, 114, 153.12, and 179 of the Constitution, or the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as defined by the Constitution.
The decision referred extensively to the terms of service of judges. It noted that arguments from the petitioner were tied to the interpretation of Article 112.4 of the Constitution, specifically the phrase related to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General: “… they shall serve under the same conditions as judges of the Supreme Court …”.
The Court clarified that this approach covers all aspects of the appeal, including the alleged violation of Article 15 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that the House of Representatives’ position emphasised that the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are not part of the judiciary or judicial service, nor do they belong to one of the constitutional powers of the state. Instead, they are members of the independent Legal Service, not under the jurisdiction of any ministry, as stipulated by Article 112.2 of the Constitution. Consequently, their roles and responsibilities are distinct from those of judges, and the law in question does not pertain to their terms of service.
The Court affirmed that the law does not alter or infringe upon the terms of service of judges, nor does it affect principles inherent to the judicial role, such as independence, impartiality, and permanence.
The provision for submitting asset declarations and other obligations imposed by the law on the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General does not fall under the scope of “terms of service” and does not alter or diminish their terms. Furthermore, it does not compromise the independence of the institution or its constitutionally defined powers.
On the contrary, the Court noted, the law promotes transparency and accountability, providing an additional safeguard to ensure the integrity of the Attorney General’s institution and strengthening public trust in this key constitutional office.
The Court reiterated that under the Constitution, the House of Representatives is the competent body to legislate on all matters, except where it contravenes the principle of separation of powers or specific constitutional provisions. It highlighted that the legislative body has broad discretion in its duties, which limits judicial intervention unless the legislature exceeds its authority or legislates in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
The Court ruled that the law in question does not violate Articles 15, 61, 112, 113, 114, 153.12, or 179 of the Constitution, nor does it undermine the principle of separation of powers.
The law introduces provisions requiring electronic submission of asset declarations by officials and publicly exposed persons, including the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, the Director of the Press Office of the President of the Republic, and the Presidents and Vice Presidents of District Local Government Organisations.
Speaking to reporters after the decision was announced, Costas Clerides, a member of the legal team representing the House of Representatives, described the case as “a difficult one with arguments from both sides, but the Constitutional Court essentially agreed with our position.”
When asked about the legal team’s stance on the issue of judges and the Attorney General’s institution, Clerides said, “The wording of the decision makes it clear, and I believe we all agree it was correct.”
In response to further questions, he confirmed that the Court found no violation of the separation of powers in the context of asset declarations and that the House acted within its legislative powers.
Also read: “Game, set, match”: Musk celebrates Trump as the winner
Source: CNA
