THE SUPREME Court will reconvene on March 7 to continue hearing the case of the district judges’ appeal, after an offer yesterday by the Attorney-general to broker a deal satisfying both sides.
The judges are challenging two items of legislation passed in late 2011 as part of an austerity package that included reductions to the salaries of state officials, among others. They wish to be exempted from the cuts, arguing that their remuneration is protected by the Constitution.
The lawyers representing the judges have argued that an unconstitutional law cannot not become constitutional because of the reason it was enacted - in this case the economic difficulties faced by the state.
At the hearing last week, the judges reiterated their proposal that, instead of taking a mandatory pay cut, they would make a voluntary contribution from their salary to the state. They said also their offer would stand irrespective of the court’s ruling.
In court yesterday, Attorney-general Petros Clerides – who represents the state against the judges – made a counter-offer.
Clerides proposed that in his capacity as Attorney-general he would sound out the executive and legislative branches of government, to see whether they would agree to amend the two laws passed in December 2011.
The wording of the laws would be amended so that the judges are omitted from the list of state officials subject to the pay cuts.
But due to the fact the House plenum is in recess and cannot reconvene until after the presidential elections, Clerides said it would be better if the next hearing in the case was delayed until then.
The court agreed and set the date for the next hearing for March 7.
Assuming Clerides gets politicians on board to amend the contentious laws, it’s understood the district court judges would then drop their appeal. They would then voluntarily contribute a part of their income to the state as promised.
Though the end-result might be the same, Clerides’ move avoids a legal battle, which would probably suit all involved.
A court ruling could directly affect the earnings, pensions and retirement bonuses of the very Supreme Court Judges who are being called to make a decision on the appeal. Conversely, the other way to settle the matter would be amend the Constitution – which no one seems to want to touch.
But the catch, the Mail understands, is that Clerides wants a binding commitment from all 90 district judges to make voluntary contributions. He also wants the contributions to be exactly equal to the cuts provided for under the two laws of 2011 as well as subsequent laws to date.
That’s unlikely to go down well with the judges; moreover, it’s still not clear whether the voluntary contributions they have proposed would be the equivalent of the total cuts imposed over the previous two years.