The circular of the Ministry of Finance regarding the titles of independent State officials as interpreted by the Attorney General of the Republic applies
There is no conflict or question of authority or competence that triggers the provisions of Article 139 of the Constitution and no influence on the Comptroller General of the Republic is identified by the circular of the Ministry of Finance regarding the correctness of the name of the position of Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Auditor General and the Assistant Auditor General of the Republic, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court decided unanimously today, rejecting the action brought by the Auditor General of the Republic challenging the circular of the Ministry of Finance in question.
The circular, which gave rise to the dispute between the parties, was issued by the Director General of the Ministry of Finance and was based on an opinion given by the Attorney General of the Republic on the issue of the correct title of the Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Auditor General and the Assistant Auditor General of the Republic. The issue was whether the correct title for the positions in question is "Assistant Attorney General" or "Assistant Attorney General". In the opinion of the Attorney General of the Republic, the correct title of those posts is 'Assistant General'.
The allegations of the Auditor General of the Republic were that the above circular is invalid, and without any legal effect, that the respondents lack competence, that there is a constitutional aberration and that there is a conflict and/or questioning of powers and/or competences within the meaning of the provisions of Article 139 of the Constitution.
The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, unanimously rejecting the application of the Comptroller General of the Republic, held that a necessary condition for the activation of Article 139 of the Constitution is that the institutions in question be affected by a specific act. As the Court held, a mere disagreement or dispute as to the competence or power of organs to act in a particular way is not sufficient if, as a result of the act in question, no influence on the applicant organ can be identified.
Accordingly, the Court held that the correct wording of the titles of the officers in question, according to the respondents, does not give rise to a disagreement, conflict or dispute as to authority or competence between the parties within the framework of Article 139 of the Constitution.
On behalf of the Republic, the application was handled by the Assistant Attorney General of the Republic, Mr. Savvas Angelides, together with the Senior Advocates of the Republic, Mr Dimitris Lysandrou and Ms Elena Papageorgiou.
The Auditor General of the Republic was represented by three private law firms.
A second appeal by the Auditor General of the Republic on the same issue, against a decision of the House of Representatives, was also unanimously rejected today by the Supreme Court.
(ML)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
