On 19.4.2022, the Ministry of Finance issued a circular to the wider public sector, in which it determined that the titles of the second-in-command in the Legal Service, the Audit Service and the General Accounting Office will not be those provided for in the Constitution and the Budget Law. As regards the Assistant Auditor General, the circular amended his title to 'Assistant Auditor General'. This was preceded on 24.3.2022 by an opinion of the Attorney General of the Republic who, on his own initiative, invited the Heads of the three affected officials to use the titles that he himself determined, instead of the constitutionally prescribed ones, on the grounds that there is a contradiction between the Greek and Turkish texts of the Constitution. In that opinion, the Attorney General had argued that the title should be changed because the second-in-command "cannot and should not be presented or treated as being 'the assistant to' the hierarchical head of the Service."
Subsequently, on the basis of the above opinion, the Council of Ministers included in the 2022 Supplementary Budget Bill a provision similar to the Circular in question. On 31.6.2022, the House of Representatives passed the Bill into law by a narrow majority.
Against the Circular and the law, our Office filed a petition with the Supreme Court respectively, in accordance with the provisions of Article 139 of the Constitution. Today the Supreme Court issued two well-reasoned and fully respected judgments. Without going into the merits as to the correct use of the relevant titles, it dismissed both applications, accepting the preliminary objection raised. In particular, both the Advocate General and the legal adviser to the House of Representatives cited a large number of preliminary objections in their pleadings, urging the Supreme Court not to go into the substance of the case. This was indeed done. The Supreme Court accepted one of the common preliminary objections and ruled that for Article 139 of the Constitution to be triggered, there must be a violation of the vested powers of the institution or authority invoking that Article, which was not the case here.
From the two unanimous Judgments of the Supreme Court, the following very important points emerge:
[A]The Supreme Court, though it avoided going into the merits of the case, itself did not use the title "Assistant General" in the text of its Judgments. Thus, when reference had to be made to the Assistant Attorney General, he was written as "AG" and when reference had to be made to the Assistant Auditor General, he was written as "Assistant".
(b) The Supreme Court confirmed the express provisions of the Constitution by stating in words that "the Auditor General shall head the Audit Department of the Republic and the Assistant shall succeed him" and that "the audit and "any other authority ... service or duty" shall be performed by the Auditor General assisted by the Assistant". The affirmation of the above is inconsistent with the background of the Attorney General's opinion quoted above, according to which the second-in-command "cannot and should not be presented or treated as being 'the assistant of' the hierarchical head of the Office".
[C]In today's Judgment, the Supreme Court rejected the position of the Attorney General on the distinction between the position of the Auditor General and that of the Attorney General as to the ability of an institution or authority to appeal to the Court under Article 139 of the Constitution and identified the status, powers and authority of the two institutions in this regard. This confirms the constitutional independence of the institution of the Auditor General, which is also provided for in the acquis communautaire.
(MB/SX)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
