I attended today, accepting a challenge, the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Public Order, where the three important bills that form the framework of the Courts Reform were discussed.
First of all, I wish to congratulate again and publicly the members of the Legal Affairs Committee and the parliamentary parties who, during the plenary session on 5 May 2022, voted in favour of the amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus to allow the use of the English language in the Commercial Court and the Maritime Court, which will be established to hear specialised cases. Despite any views to the contrary, which are always respected, this amendment is extremely important as it will create the basis for attracting serious international investment to our country, as well as helping Cyprus to become a centre for dispute resolution. It is for this very reason that I would like to reiterate that Justice Reform issues have no political or partisan connotations and knowing the high sense of responsibility that the MPs and the parliamentary parties have, I believe that the reform bills pending before the Legal Affairs Committee will be treated as such.
Apart from this, my presence today in the Legal Affairs Committee is the result of my great anxiety and concern - given that the Legal Service is the largest institutional litigant before the Courts - about where the Cypriot justice system is heading today. An issue whose importance I have reiterated today in the Legal Affairs Committee, since the problems of delays in the adjudication of cases are the biggest bane of a system that is sinking and will continue to sink because it has not been modernised. It is on this basis that I have today outlined to Members of the Committee the ongoing initiatives that we as the Legal Service are taking on how we can help to further mitigate the problem of court delays. Among other things, I have recommended to the Supreme Court ways to simplify the procedure of the Administrative Tribunal for International Protection, as well as the possibility in criminal cases to increase the jurisdiction of one judge to be able to impose a 7-year prison sentence instead of up to 5 years as is currently the case, which will inevitably reduce the number of cases sent for trial in the Criminal Courts. I am also in consultation with the Supreme Court as to whether the issue of some warrants, such as search warrants, could be made appealable instead of being challenged by privilege warrants. And appeals should be heard within a short fixed time. For these recommendations, which may save judicial time, I await the views of the Supreme Court.
Finally, on the issue of the concerns expressed about possible unconstitutionality in relation to the creation of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Constitutional Court and the potential impact on the Law of Necessity, I have today reiterated to the Law Commission the position of the Legal Service - which was also sent in writing - that, in our view, the passage of the Bills is constitutional under the Law of Necessity, which continues to exist. A very similar issue was recently raised in the Full Bench of the Supreme Court when the constitutionality of the creation of the Administrative Court was challenged. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court there held the creation of the Administrative Tribunals to be constitutional, concluding that: "It follows that the constitutional legislature, in its wisdom, which is not judicially controlled by settled case law, just as the expediency of a legislation is not controlled, acted in a lawful manner having considered that the time had come after the passage of many decades since 1964 for the House of Representatives to assist in the speedier administration of justice by creating an Administrative Court. There is nothing unconstitutional about this legislative move to enhance the administration of justice."
(MΛ)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
