Two bills sent back to parliament by President Anastasiades because he had problems with them are null and void because MPs failed to re-vote on them within the time limit specified by law, Attorney-general Costas Clerides said on Tuesday.
As such, the president is now under no obligation to sign the two bills into law.
“Essentially, it is as if these two laws do not exist,” Clerides said.
Once a bill is sent back to parliament, the legislature has 15 days to re-review the item and vote on it again.
On these two items, Clerides said that because the 15 days have lapsed without parliament taking any action, the bills in question are by default considered null and void.
It did not matter that parliament had disbanded in the meantime, he added.
“Parliament is not dissolved at any stage before its term is complete,” the AG explained.
“Between its disbandment and the re-constituting of the legislature, parliament could have convened to review the bills sent back to it,” he said, adding that there is no ‘dead period’ where the legislature is concerned.
One of the bills in question provides for the repayment of social insurance arrears in up to 60 monthly instalments, the other is titled ‘The Termination of Employment Law 2016’.
They were passed during the plenary session of April 14, the last before parliament disbanded ahead of the May 22 elections.
Opposition MPs have been making noises about re-drafting the two bills from scratch after the new parliament is sworn in.
Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it would review collectively a further 16 bills referred to it by the President after they were deemed problematic.
Most were found to include some provisions that clash with the constitution while others were entirely unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has set June 1 as the date for hearing objections to the referrals; the objections will be filed by the lawyers representing parliament.
Later, on June 6, the court will issue instructions as to the further handling of the referrals.
Opposition parties especially insisted on passing two bills despite warnings that they were probably unconstitutional.
One provided for offsetting loans with bank bonds, and one for the participation of bailed-in depositors on the lender’s board.
