Supreme Court ruled it can summon witnesses in Social Insurance proceedings under Article 146.

[*1395] 1971 October 23

(MALACHTOS, J.)

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION In the matter of Article 146 of the Constitution

Panayiotis Antoniou,

Applicant,

and

The Republic of Cyprus, through

The Minister of Labour and Social

Insurance,

Respondent.

(Case No. 8/71).

Supreme Constitutional Court Rules 1962, rule 11 Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction as an administrative Court under Article 146 of the Constitution, empowered thereunder to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents for the purpose of enabling it to do justice in the case Relevant discretion to be exercised judicially.

Social Insurance Proceedings under the Social Insurance Law 1964 (2/64)Power of Supreme Court, sitting as an Administrative Court, to apply sections 67 to 71 of the Law.

P. Sivitanides and P. Michaelides, for the Applicant.

L. Loucaides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.

RULING

The following ruling was delivered by:-

MALACHTOS, J.: In this case Mr. Sivitanides, counsel for the applicant, in his opening address applied to the [*1396] Court that the persons who made statements to the Assistant Labour Officer in connection with the present case and, in particular, the rural constable of Timi village namely, Costas Kattides, be summoned to appear before the Court and give evidence.

Mr. Loucaides appearing for the respondents objected to such a course being followed by the Court and submitted that the Administration, after making their assessment of the evidence, they rejected the version of the applicant as, in the circumstances, he was not an employed person within the meaning of section 2 of the Social Insurance Law 1964. He further submitted that this Court, as an Administrative Court, in proceedings under Article 146 of the Constitution, cannot interfere in respect of findings of fact by an Administrative Authority. The Administrative Court is not an appellate court exercising appellate jurisdiction as regards administrative decisions. It cannot, therefore, have the same powers as in the case of a Court of Appeal in considering judgments of inferior courts.

I have considered the able arguments at counsel and I have come to the conclusion that this Court, in exercising its jurisdiction as an Administrative Court, has power to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents for the purpose of enabling the Court to come to a just

decision in the case, This is clear from the wording of rule 11 of the Supreme Constitutional Court Rules 1962. [*1397] Of course, this discretion must be exercised judicially taking into consideration the circumstances of each particular case.

I must further say that I hold the view that in proceedings under the Social Insurance Law, 1964, this Court after the 9th July, 1964, the date of coming into operation of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964 has power in a proper application to apply the provisions of sections 67 to 71, both inclusive of the Social Insurance Law, 1964, being the Court having jurisdiction as defined in section 2 of the said Law.

In the present case I consider necessary that the applicant, Panayiotis Antoniou of Timi, Paphos, as well as the rural constable of Timi, namely, Costas Kattides, should be summoned to give evidence for the purpose of enabling the Court to come to a just decision in the case.

The case is adjourned to the 17th December, 1971, for further hearing.

The Registrar is directed to summon the applicant, Panayiotis Antoniou of Timi, Paphos, as well as the rural constable of Timi, Paphos, Costas Kattides, to appear before this Court on the above date to give evidence.

Order in terms.