Cyprus's Constitution of 1960 with Amendments Through 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:25 constituteproject.org Cyprus's Constitution of 1960 with Amendments through 2013 Subsequently amended This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:25 Table of contents Part I: GENERAL PROVISIONS . 8 Article 1 . 8 Article 1A . 8 Article 2 . 8 Article 3 . 9 Article 4 . 10 Article 5 . 10 Part II: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES . 11 Article 6 . 11 Article 7 . 11 Article 8 . 11 Article 9 . 11 Article 10 . 11 Article 11 . 12 Article 12 . 13 Article 13 . 14 Article 14 . 14 Article 15 . 14 Article 16 . 14 Article 17 . 14 Article 18 . 15 Article 19 . 15 Article 20 . 16 Article 21 . 16 Article 22 . 16 Article 23 . 17 Article 24 . 19 Article 25 . 19 Article 26 . 20 Article 27 . 20 Article 28 . 20 Article 29 . 20 Article 30 . 21 Article 31 . 21 Article 32 . 21 Article 33 . 21 Article 34 . 22 Cyprus 1960 (rev. 2013) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:25 Article 35 . 22 Part III: THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS . 22 Article 36 . 22 Article 37 . 22 Article 38 . 23 Article 39 . 23 Article 40 . 24 Article 41 . 24 Article 42 . 24 Article 43 . 24 Article 44 . 25 Article 45 . 25 Article 46 . 26 Article 47 . 27 Article 48 . 28 Article 49 . 29 Article 50 . 30 Article 51 . 31 Article 52 . ..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

File Its Certiorari Petition Until August 2020,1 and Therefore This Court Likely Would Not Determine Whether to Grant Or Deny That Petition Until at Least
No. 19A1035 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Applicant, v. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES _______________ On Application for Stay of the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit _______________ OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE _______________ Annie L. Owens Douglas N. Letter Joshua A. Geltzer Counsel of Record Mary B. McCord Todd B. Tatelman Daniel B. Rice Megan Barbero INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Josephine Morse ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION Adam A. Grogg Georgetown University Law Center Jonathan B. Schwartz 600 New Jersey Avenue N.W. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C. 20001 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (202) 662-9042 219 Cannon House Building [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 [email protected] Counsel for Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 9 I. This Court Should Deny A Stay Of The Mandate Pending Certiorari ............. 9 A. DOJ Cannot Show A Reasonable Probability That This Court Will Grant Certiorari ..................................................................................... 10 B. DOJ Cannot Establish A Fair Prospect That
[Show full text]
The Latins of Cyprus Published by the Research, Studies and Publications Service of the House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus
The Latins of Cyprus Published by the Research, Studies and Publications Service of the House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus Coordination and supervision Georgia Andronikou, Service Director Anthi Tofari, Senior Ofcer for Research, Studies and Publications Research and texts Natassa Haralambous Andreas Papayiannis Sofa Papadopoulou Marianna Moyseos Elena Makrygiorgie Editing Natassa Haralambous Andreas Papayiannis Sofa Papadopoulou Translation Anastasia Korae Design Athena Sheittani Printing Government Printing Ofce ISBN 978-9963-39-084-4 (print) ISBN 978-9963-39-087-8 (ebook) © House of Representatives, Nicosia, November 2020 Javal Nechrou Avenue, 1402 Nicosia, Cyprus telephone: +357 22407315, fax: +357 22407290 [email protected], www.parliament.cy Table of contents Preface 7 Message by the Representative of the Latin religious group 9 Publisher’s note 11 Name and origin 13 The settlement and the frst years of the Latin Church in Cyprus 14 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 15 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the Turkish Rule 19 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the British Rule 20 The Latin Church in Cyprus from Independence to date 21 Latin infuences on the Orthodox church architecture 22 Walls and fortresses during the period of the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 25 Music 29 The assizes of the kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus 30 Infuences on Literature 31 Efect of the Latins on the Cypriot dialect 33 Toponyms related to the times of the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 34 The
[Show full text]
Overview of the Constitution
CYPRUS PROBLEM: Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus file:///home/taygeti/Desktop/kupros/valmena/constitution... OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION The Republic of Cyprus was born in the early hours of 16 August 1960. On that date the Republic´s constitution was signed by the lst Governor of the Colony of Cyprus, Sir Hugh Foot, the Consul-General of Greece, George Christopoulos, his Turkish counterpart, Turel, and Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Fazil Kutchuk on behalf of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. The range of signatories reflected the fact that the constitution of Cyprus did not emanate from the free will of its people, who were not consulted either directly or through their ad hoc elected representatives, but from the Zurich Agreement between Greece and Turkey. The terms of that agreement, outlined in the last chapter, were included in the constitution as fundamental Articles, which could not be revised or amended. The constitution was drafted by the Joint Constitutional Commission created under Part VIII of the London Agreement of 19 February 1959. It comprised representatives of Greece, Turkey, the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community. But the structure of the constitution again reflected the Zurich Agreement, with various provisions from the 1950 Greek constitution also incorporated along with the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights in respect of fundamental rights and liberties. Two main principles underpinned the constitutional structure agreed at Zurich. The first recognised the existence of two communities on the island - the Greek and the Turkish - who, despite their numerical disparity, were given equal treatment.
[Show full text]
Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand **
CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND ** SOMDET PHRA PARAMINTHARAMAHA BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ SAYAMMINTHARATHIRAT BOROMMANATTHABOPHIT Enacted on the 11th Day of October B.E. 2540; Being the 52nd Year of the Present Reign. May there be virtue. Today is the tenth day of the waxing moon in the eleventh month of the year of the Ox under the lunar calendar, being Saturday, the eleventh day of October under the solar calendar, in the 2540th year of the Buddhist Era. Phrabat Somdet Phra Paramintharamaha Bhumibol Adulyadej Mahitalathibet Ramathibodi Chakkri Narubodin Sayammintharathirat Borommanatthabophit is graciously pleased to proclaim that whereas Constitutions have been promulgated as the principle of the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State in Thailand for more than sixty-five years, and there had been annulment and amendment to the Constitutions on several occasions, it is manifest that the Constitution is changeable depending upon the situation in the country. In addition, the Constitution must clearly lay down fundamental rules as the principle of the administration of the State and the guideline for the preparation of the organic laws and other laws in conformity therewith; and whereas the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2534 as amended by the Constitution Amendment (No. 6), B.E. 2539 established the Constituent Assembly, consisting of ninety- nine members elected by the National Assembly, charged with the duty to prepare a draft of a new Constitution as the fundamental of political reform and
[Show full text]
Constitutional Courts Versus Supreme Courts
SYMPOSIUM Constitutional courts versus supreme courts Lech Garlicki* Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/5/1/44/722508 by guest on 30 September 2021 Constitutional courts exist in most of the civil law countries of Westem Europe, and in almost all the new democracies in Eastem Europe; even France has developed its Conseil Constitutionnel into a genuine constitutional jurisdiction. While their emergence may be regarded as one of the most successful improvements on traditional European concepts of democracy and the rule of law, it has inevitably given rise to questions about the distribution of power at the supreme judicial level. As constitutional law has come to permeate the entire structure of the legal system, it has become impossible to maintain a ﬁ rm delimitation between the functions of the constitutional court and those of ordinary courts. This article looks at various conﬂ icts arising between the higher courts of Germany, Italy, Poland, and France, and concludes that, in both positive and negative lawmaking, certain tensions are bound to exist as a necessary component of centralized judicial review. 1 . The Kelsenian model: Parallel supreme jurisdictions 1.1 The model The centralized Kelsenian system of judicial review is built on two basic assu- mptions. It concentrates the power of constitutional review within a single judicial body, typically called a constitutional court, and it situates that court outside the traditional structure of the judicial branch. While this system emerged more than a century after the United States’ system of diffused review, it has developed — particularly in Europe — into a widely accepted version of constitutional protection and control.
[Show full text]
The Common Law Jurisdiction of the United States Courts
YALE LAW JOURNAL VOL. XVII NOVEMBER, 1907 No. i THE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS To me it seems clear, beyond question, that neither in the Constitution, nor in the statutes enacted by Congress, nor in the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States can there be found any substantial support for the proposition that, since the adoption of the Constitution, the principles of the Common Law have been wholly abrogated touching such matters as are by that instrument placed within the exclusive control of the National Goverment. (Judge Shiras in Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Rly. Co., 62 Fed. 24.) To whatever has required for its upbuilding the prolonged activity of countless men, in one generation after another, whether expressed in unconfined exertion of physical labor which produces for our astonishment a pyramid, a cathedral, or in endless mental effort which evolves for our wonder a science, an art, a system of law, men have always paid respect. As conferred upon a system of law, that respect has always, in English-speaking countries, been acorded to the Common Law. Law exists for justice, and Webster said: "The Common Law is a fcuntain of justice, perennial and per- petual." Rightly did he as a representative American pay this tribute, for to the founders ot this government there never had been another system of law. They were, in large measure, descendants of those Englishmen who, centuries back, had ceaselessly petitioned for YALE LAW JOURNAL recognition of their rights of person and property; had finally obtained them, and from that foundation had ever thereafter through their courts received justice as their due.
[Show full text]
WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding Vs
WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding vs. Persuasive Cases © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. You have found the perfect case: the facts are similar to yours and the law is on point. But does the court before which you are practicing (or, in law school, the jurisdiction to which you have been assigned) have to follow the case? Stare decisis is the common law principle that requires courts to follow precedents set by other courts. Under stare decisis, courts are obliged to follow some precedents, but not others. Because of the many layers of our federal system, it can be difficult to figure out which decisions bind a given court. This handout is designed to help you determine which decisions are mandatory and which are persuasive on the court before which you are practicing. Binding versus Persuasive Authority: What’s the Difference? • Binding authority, also referred to as mandatory authority, refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. • Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but does not have to follow. To get started, ask yourself two questions: 1) Are the legal issues in your case governed by state or federal law? and 2) Which court are you in? Once you know the answers to these questions, you are well on your way to determining whether a decision is mandatory or persuasive. Step 1: Are the Legal Issues in Your Case Governed by Federal or State Law? First, a lawyer needs to know the facts and issues of the case.
[Show full text]
Constitutional Provisions on the Prosecution Service in Council of Europe Member States
Strasbourg, 3 October 2008 CDL-JD(2008)003* Study No. 494/2008 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON THE PROSECUTION SERVICE IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-JD(2008)003 - 2 - Table of contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 II. Overview according to ‘legal families’............................................................................ 5 III. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 6 IV. Common Law system................................................................................................ 7 A. Appointment, incompatibilities, transfers, detachements, promotion, retirement and dissmisal ........................................................................................................................... 7 1. Cyprus................................................................................................................... 7 2. Malta ....................................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Supreme Court/Docketpdf/19/19
No. 19-292 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANICE MADRID, ET AL., Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ ELIZABETH B. WYDRA BRIANNE J. GOROD* DAVID H. GANS BRIAN R. FRAZELLE CLARE E. RIVA** CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER 1200 18th Street NW Suite 501 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-6889 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae February 6, 2020 * Counsel of Record ** Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the firm TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ......................................................... 5 I. The Common Law’s Expansive Definition of “Arrest” Should Inform the Meaning of “Seizure” Under the Fourth Amendment ... 5 II. In Founding-Era Common Law, An Arrest Included Any Use of Physical Force to Subdue or Detain, Whether or Not the Subject Was Ultimately Captured .............. 15 III. Applying the Common Law Rule Will Also Vindicate the Framers’ Understanding that Civil Damages Actions Would Be a Key Deterrent Against Unreasonable Intrusions on Persons and Property .......... 21 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 25 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Barrett v. Copeland, 18 Vt. 67 (1844) ...................................... 23 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) ................................ 8, 22 Burlingham v. Wylee, 2 Root 152 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1794) ....... 23 California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) ................................ passim Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
[Show full text]
Article Iii, Sections 1–2]
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 177–§ 178 [ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 1–2] In 2009, the House agreed to a resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary and called up as a question of the privileges of the House impeaching Federal district judge Samuel B. Kent for high crimes and misdemeanors specified in 4 articles of impeachment, some of them ad- dressing allegations on which the judge had been convicted in a Federal criminal trial (June 19, 2009, p. l). A resolution offered from the floor to permit the Delegate of the District of Columbia to vote on the articles of impeachment was held not to con- stitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27825). To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28100). For further discussion of impeachment proceedings, see §§ 601–620, infra; § 31, supra, and Deschler, ch. 14. ARTICLE III. SECTION 1. The judicial Power of the United § 177. The judges, their States, shall be vested in one su- terms, and compensation. preme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. SECTION 2. 1 The judicial Power shall extend § 178. Extent of the to all Cases, in Law and Equity, judicial power.
[Show full text]
June 03, 1968 Transcript No. 53 of the Meeting of the Central Committee Bureau of the Moldavian Communist Party
Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified June 03, 1968 Transcript No. 53 of the Meeting of the Central Committee Bureau of the Moldavian Communist Party Citation: “Transcript No. 53 of the Meeting of the Central Committee Bureau of the Moldavian Communist Party,” June 03, 1968, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, AOSPRM, fond. 51, inv. 29, dosar 13, filele 3, 9-16; Document No. 4 in Elena Negru and Gheorghe Negru, “PCM şi Naţionalism (1965-1989): Documente adunate în cadrul programului de cercetări effectuate de câtre Comisia pentru studierea şi aprecierea regimului tolitar communist din Republica Moldova,” special edition, Destin românesc, vol. 16, no. 5-6 (2010), pp. 37-44. Translated for CWIHP by Larry L. Watts. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116348 Summary: The Moldavian Communist Party discusses a decision by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Central Committee approving measures for "improving ideological work in the republic," i.e. combating Romanian propaganda which undermined the separate ethnic and political identity of MoldThe MCP instructed a variety of institutions to cooperate in strictly regulating and reducing the entry of Romanian publications, broadcasts, information, and tourism into the republic; to create a propaganda base within the republic that would include increase numbers of publications and broadcasts, and new radio and television broadcast facilities; and to launch a new ideological offensive to combat Romanian influence. Credits: This document was made possible with support from the Leon Levy Foundation. Original Language: Russian Contents: English Translation Scan of Original Document Transcript No. 53 of the Meeting of the Central Committee Bureau of the Communist Party of Moldavia Cde.
[Show full text]
STANDING CONFERENCE of EUROPEAN MINISTERS of EDUCATION 18TH SESSION (Madrid, 23-24 March 1994) : Summary Report of the Secretary
*** * * COUNCIL ** ** CONSEIL OF EUROPE * * * DE L'EUROPE Committee of Ministers Comite des Ministres CMD008288 Strasbourg, 28 April 1994 __ Restricted CM(94)76 For consideration at the 513th meeting of the Ministers Deputies (May 1994, item 7.1, B level) STANDING CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN MINISTERS OF EDUCATION 18TH SESSION (Madrid, 23-24 March 1994) ^y Summary Report of the Secretary General prepared by the Directorate of Education, Culture and Sport CM(94)76 - 2 - 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The 18th Session of the Standing Conference of the European Ministers of Education was held in Madrid on 23-24 March 1994 at the invitation of the Spanish authorities. The main theme was "Building the New Europe: democratic values, education and mobility". 1.2 This was the biggest session of the Standing Conference to be held so far. All 38 States party to the European Cultural Convention participated in it, 27 of them at ministerial level. Also represented were: (i) five other States participating in the CSCE and Australia; (ii) the Committee of Ministers' Deputies, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Standing Conference of the Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, and the Education Committee and Standing Conference on University Problems of the CDCC; (iii) the Commission and Council of the European Union; (iv) UNESCO, the OECDr the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Organisation of Ibero-american States. The list of participants is given in Appendix IV. 1.3 The agenda of the 18th Session is given in Appendix II. The opening ceremony took place in the presence of Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain, and it was addressed, in the following order, by the Secretary General, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies, the Spanish Minister of Education, and his Majesty King Juan Carlos.
[Show full text]