[PIO] Scientific Conference on Administrative Law

The scientific conference on administrative law, which was co-organised by the newly established Foundation for Parliamentarism and Participatory Democracy of the House of Representatives and the newly established Academy of the Legal Service of the Republic, was held with great success on 3 April 2024. This conference is the first of a series of events with which the Foundation of the House of Representatives intends to contribute to the public debate on important issues of legal and wider interest. The theme of the conference was based on a presentation by Mr Panikos Leonidou, Member of Parliament, who, in the context of the recent judicial reform, was the main rapporteur of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, which has established in the Cypriot legal order the necessary constitutional basis for extending the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court to administrative disputes of substance.

During the conference, which was attended by a large number of judicial officers of the higher and administrative courts of Cyprus, lawyers and public officials, prominent personalities in the field of administrative law from Cyprus and Greece, namely judges, academics and practising lawyers, as well as the Commissioner for Administration and Protection of Human Rights, were invited and attended as speakers.

The first part of the conference was moderated by the Greek political scientist, columnist and writer Mr. Konstantinos Cholevas, while the second part was moderated by Mr. Achilleas Emilianides, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Nicosia. The President of the House of Representatives and President of the Foundation of the House of Representatives Mrs. Anita Demetriou, the Attorney General of the Republic Mr. George Savvidis, the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court Mr. Antonis Liatsos and the Minister of Justice and Public Order Mr. Mr. Marios Hartsiotis, through his representative.

Submissions were made in Part One, in order, by Mr. Ioannis Simeonidis, Commissioner General of the State of the Ordinary Administrative Courts and Professor of Administrative Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Panos Lazaratos, Professor of Administrative Law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mr. Nikolaos Soilentakis, Honorary President of the Administrative Courts of Appeal of Greece and Doctor of Law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Mrs. Varvara Boukouval, President of the First Instance Court of the Administrative Courts of Greece and Doctor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. In the Second Part, contributions were made in turn by Mr. Andreas Angelides, lawyer specialised in administrative law and former Member of Parliament, Ms. Maria Stylianou-Lottidi, Commissioner for Administration and Human Rights Protection, Ms. Eugenia Prevedourou, Professor of Public Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Mr. Kostas Paraskeva, Associate Professor of Public Law and Human Rights at the University of Cyprus.

The main subject of the workshop was the issue of the extension by law of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in Cyprus to administrative disputes of substance, a need arising from the constitutional amendment already in force from 2022, as well as the valuable experience of the Greek legal order on this issue, where a number of administrative disputes have already been made effective by the adoption of special laws or case law. The subject of the second part of the workshop was the issue of non-compliance of the administration with the decisions of the administrative courts, an issue which, as far as the Cypriot legal order is concerned, is currently only found in annulment disputes. Greece's experience was also presented with regard to the issue of enforcement of court decisions in administrative disputes on the merits.

The main conclusions of the conference, which are expected to form the basis of the state's legislative process for the extension by law to the Cypriot legal order of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in substantive administrative disputes, are summarised as follows:

(a) The necessary constitutional framework for the statutory extension of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in substantive administrative disputes is already in force in the Cypriot legal order, following the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution [NO. LAW 103(I) OF 2021].

(b) It is imperative that, in the procedure for the substantialization of administrative disputes, the plurality and overlaps observed in Greece be avoided, through the adoption of a special law in which the administrative disputes requiring substantialization are exhaustively defined.

(b) It is necessary that, in the procedure for the substantialization of administrative disputes, the plurality and overlaps observed in Greece be avoided, through the adoption of a special law in which the administrative disputes requiring substantialization are exhaustively defined. In this way, the phenomenon of the introduction of substantive disputes by case law will also be avoided. Alternatively, instead of exhaustively listing in a law the disputes that need to be substantive, consideration should be given to defining criteria for separating administrative disputes into substantive and annulment disputes, given the fact that the Constitution recognises only one legal remedy, which may constitute the single remedy for both annulment and substantive disputes, namely that of 'appeal'. In the same context, it is also necessary to study the issue in the light of the fact that the distinction between administrative disputes on the grounds of annulment or on the merits may be based, respectively, on the legitimate interest of the applicant or on a claim referring to a right, and given that in the case of annulment disputes the claim is limited to the right to be heard, in whole or in part, annulment of the enforceable administrative act, whereas in an administrative dispute on the merits the court proceeds to a determination of the truth and the facts of the case and, accordingly, to a modification, in whole or in part, of the substantive content of the act, of the right or obligation and, in general, of the resulting situation.

(c) It is necessary to define the extent of the power of the administrative judge so that, in the context of the judicial review carried out, he may formulate the substantive content of the contested act, in such a way as to safeguard the principle of the separation of powers and, consequently, to prevent any substitution of the administration in its work;

(d) It is necessary to adopt procedural rules governing not only the judicial review of administrative disputes on the merits but also the review of the legality of disputes for annulment, i.e. it is necessary to adopt a Uniform Code of Administrative Procedure.

(e) It is necessary to define the procedural rules for the collection of evidence, in the context of extending the power of the administrative judge to act ex officio on the basis of an investigative system, for the purposes of effective diagnosis and rapid adoption of the decision. Within the same framework, rules should be laid down for the production of specific reports, documents and/or the entire administrative file before the court within a specified time limit and the establishment of similar mechanisms to support the judge in the process of establishing the truth, as well as the extent to which technical judgments and expert opinions can contribute to administrative proceedings in substantive disputes.

(f) The legislative framework to be adopted should be consistent with Union law and the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.