Public order issues - ex officio examination by the Court

According to case law, the Administrative Court has jurisdiction to examine ex officio issues which are matters of public order. Public order issues can be raised either by the parties or by the Court at any stage of the proceedings (Demokratia v. Mattheiou (1990) 3 A.A.D. 2452, Panagsan v. Republic of Cyprus, through the Department of Population Records and of Immigration, Case no. 1058/20, dated 03/21/2022). Public order issues are examined by the Court regardless of whether they are raised in the petition or not (Association of Cyprus Insurance Companies v. Commission for the Protection of Competition (2002) 3 A.A.D. 314, Nicholas v. Democracy (2011) 3 A. AD 583).

One example of a public order issue is the competence of the person issuing an administrative act, which is considered ex officio and as a matter of priority (E.G. and Republic of Cyprus, through Asylum Service, Case No. 3530/21, N.S. and Republic of Cyprus, through Asylum Service, Ministry of Interior , Case No. 7741/2021, dated 06/30/2023). In relation to this issue, it has been mentioned that,

"What is of primary importance is not the identity of the person or body that signed the letter informing the appellant of the rejection of his application, but the identity of the person or body that made the relevant decision" (Charalambos Svanas v. Democracy (2011) 3 A.A.D. 576).

Another example of a public order issue is whether a judicial review has been filed within the prescribed timeframes (M.M.R. and Republic of Cyprus, through the Refugee Review Authority, Case No.: 1612/17, dated 19.11.2019).

Furthermore, the existence of a legitimate interest is also an issue which is examined and decided as a matter of priority at any stage of the procedure, even ex officio by the Court (The Onisi Ltd v. Republic, S.A. 202A/2010, dated 13.2.2017, Papadopoulos et al v. RIK et al (1996) 3 A.A.D. 1). Legitimate interest is a prerequisite for the exercise of any judicial review (Kulenti v. Republic, S.A. 92/2014, dated 2.12.2020) and should be present at all stages of the procedure (Mavroudis et al. v. Democracy (1991) 3 A.A.D. 123, Dora Andrea Kouppa v. Democracy (2009) 3 A.A.D. 149, Lambratsiotis v. of the Republic (2013) 3 A.A.D. 202).

This article has been written by Chara Palekythriti, Lawyer - Legal Consultant ©

Disclaimer: This article is for informative purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, opinion or otherwise.