A WHOLE bag of worms could be unleashed if the government goes ahead with plans to amend the Constitution to allow EU law to take precedence.
The issue came to the fore after the Supreme Court upheld a decision by a Limassol district court not to extradite a Cypriot wanted on tax fraud charges in the UK. The top court was merely adhering to the Constitution, which expressly prohibits Cypriot nationals from being transferred abroad for prosecution, but this is in breach of EU laws governing mutual judicial assistance between member-states.
The case revolved around Constandinos Constandinou, 41, wanted by British authorities in connection with a £10 million sterling VAT scam. Constandinou has been using Cyprus as a safe haven.
But amending the Constitution would have sweeping consequences: for one thing, if EU law becomes the ultimate authority, this would impact the role of the Turkish Cypriot community in the Republic.
Right now, because of the Cyprus problem, Turkish Cypriots cannot vote, as provisions for elections to their own Chamber and for a vice-president have been in abeyance since the 60s. This state of affairs is in violation of EU law, as it deprives Turkish Cypriots living in the free areas of their most basic civic rights.
With that in mind, some speculate the government has been dragging its feet to avoid opening up this Pandora’s box.
But there are other ramifications: the Constitution states that all legislative acts, whatever their provenance, must be ratified by parliament.
“The legislative powers of the Republic are exercised by the Parliament in all matters,” the Constitution reads.
However, this contradicts the acquis in the case of EU Regulations, which are enforced without the need to go through the House of Representatives (as opposed to EU directives).
Another aspect is treaties entered into with foreign governments or organisations: Article 169 of the Constitution provides that these treaties take precedence over domestic laws. But if such treaties signed in the past clash with the acquis, then as an EU member Cyprus must enforce the acquis. However, this cannot be done now, as the Constitution still reigns supreme.
In a memo sent to President Tassos Papadopoulos as far back as April 2003, then Attorney-general Alecos Markides warned that Cyprus would be left exposed inside the EU upon its accession if it did not resolve this discrepancy. Markides cited at least two dozen articles of the Constitution that needed to be amended; they included some of the so-called “vital articles,” i.e. those dealing with the state’s bicommunal character.
Because of these “vital articles” that affect people’s lives directly, Markides insists that, in addition to ratification by parliament, a referendum is needed to amend the Constitution.
He took his line of reasoning a step further, saying that all citizens eligible to vote should be allowed to take part in a possible referendum – and that would include Turkish Cypriots living in the north who have acquired citizenship of the Republic since the opening of the checkpoints.
Not everyone agrees: for instance, DIKO deputy Andreas Angelides is not sure whether now is the time for such earth-shattering changes, and instead advocates a more cautious approach. Angelides suggests that only Article 11 (relating to extraditions of Cypriot nationals) should be amended for the time being.
A similar reasoning has been adopted by European Party MP Rikkos Erotocritou, who also happens to be the lawyer for the fugitive Constandinou.
But Markides, who told the Cyprus Mail earlier he was “baffled” by the government’s procrastination, says that this type of step-by-step attitude would “not make the problem go away” and could make the island liable to stiff penalties for failure to implement EU law.
The former Attorney-general, known for his outspoken views on rapprochement and equal rights for Turkish Cypriots, has accused the government of “unfathomable conservatism” over the issue.
