-
.
- Ελληνικά
The Supreme Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear directly appeals against decisions of the Administrative Court registered before 31 December 2018 and the Court of Appeal (court of appeal) has jurisdiction to hear appeals registered from 1 January 2019 onwards, with the right, in case of conflicting or contradictory decisions of the Court of Appeal, to be heard and finally decided by a court of third instance, i.e. the Supreme Constitutional Court.
This is the unanimous decision of the full plenary of the Supreme Constitutional Court issued on 31 January 2024, which, on appeal, examined and ruled as constitutional the transitional legislative provision passed by the House of Representatives, which gives extended, for a transitional period, jurisdiction to the Supreme Constitutional Court to hear appeals against decisions of the Administrative Court.
As the Court notes, the enactment of the relevant provision by the House of Representatives does not constitute an interference by the legislature with the judiciary since the House acted in the exercise of its constitutional powers, nor does it suggest a "downgrading" of the Supreme Constitutional Court to a mere reviewing Court of Appeal, as the appellant's lawyers argued.
Similarly, the appellant's lawyers' claim that their client was subject to unequal treatment because he was denied access to a tertiary court by having the appeal heard by the Supreme Constitutional Court rather than the Court of Appeal (since the appeal was registered before 31 December 2018) was also rejected, with the Court noting in its decision that "a review of the provisions of the law at issue, which are relevant to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Constitutional Court, reveals a substantial assimilation of all pending appellate review jurisdiction cases, whether they were filed before 31 December 2019 or afterwards".
The Court rejected the appellant's claims, noting that given the originality of the issues raised it would not make an order for costs.
The case was handled on behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic by Ms Maria Kotsoni, Attorney at Law of the Republic.
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
