The Court of Appeal, in the context of its civil jurisdiction, rejected today’s appeal against ETYK and its members for a strike held in 2007 at the National Bank of Greece (Cyprus), judging that
As stated in the ruling, although, before the Court of First Instance, it appears to have been carried out by the submission of eight witnesses on the part of the appellants and five witnesses on the part of the appellants as well as the submission of a multitude of evidence. 71/1965 or at least some of them were prevented by the lawsuit, thus making the court unauthorized to heard it. “
In particular, the Court of First Instance “refers extensively to the constitutionally guaranteed right of strike and to other related principles and concepts with informative and apt reference to laws, conditions, textbooks and case law – pages 15-24”.
“On pages 24-27 lies the quintessence of the judicial crisis, with the conclusion that” the Court is not acquired in power to take action on a civil right which has been committed by or by guild, “he notes.
About the quintessence of his judgment, he expresses the conclusion that “on the basis of all of the above I conclude that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the present difference” and that “it is not appropriate to proceed and examine the substance of the case” (page 31) and rejects the lawsuit.
The first ground of appeal is essentially the substantive jurisdiction of the judicial court. As such, it is crucial and it is important.
As the Court of Appeal states, the Court of First Instance is reiterated, re -based on Articles 40 (2), 41 and 43 (1) of Law 71/1965, it ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case and quoted the wording of the relevant articles.
The Court of Appeal also states Article 34 (1) of the Civil Appeals Law of Chapter 148, “which explicitly provides that the challenge of causing a third party to violate a third party for the purpose of promoting a strike in relation to labor disputes created in the work where strikers are employed does not constitute a civil crime”.
“In the present case it was not in question and in any case it is pervasive from the evidence that the appellants were testified in the category of persons specified in Article 43 (1) of Law71/1965,” it is noted.
“The respondent 1 was a guild, its 2-5 officials and its suspicious 6-10 members. Consequently, to the extent that they were given a civil crime, either directly or indirectly, committed by or on the part of the guild, on the basis of the above article, the Court of Justice is actually deprived of jurisdiction to judge the lawsuit, “the Court of Appeal rules.
“We would simply add that even if the criminal offense and criminal offense proved to be a criminal offense, it was also a civil offense, the possibility of the Court of First Instance to judge the action, possibly again to the provisions of the abovementioned Articles (1) and Articles 41 (1) (1). 148 “, added.
“Concerning the newly -developed position on page 6 of the appellant’s note that was lodged before our hearing, that is, the Political Court can also decide whether an act/omission constitutes a criminal offense, we will simply be limited to pointing out that this is not the case. The two jurisdictions are institutional and substantially distinct, with other procedure and current data and with a different burden of proof, ”it notes.
Source: KYPE