The Supreme Court, in two different decisions, ruled in two Petitions by the President of the Republic, Laws passed by the Parliament, that they are not contrary to relevant European Directives or the Constitution.
Specifically, the decisions, announced on Monday, concern the Law on Social Insurance (Amendment) (no. 6) Law of 2021 and the Law on Transfer and Mortgage Real Estate (Amendment) (No. 2) Law, also of 2021. >
Regarding the Law on Social Insurance, the Supreme, unanimously ruled that “it is not contrary or inconsistent with Directive 2014/24/EU, Articles 80.2, 122, 125.1 and 179 of the Constitution and the Principle of Discrimination of Powers and therefore may be issued. “
The amendment has been made so that the meaning of the term “employee” for social security purposes explicitly and unequivocally includes employment under a service purchase contract or any other relevant contract, regardless of the classification assigned to such a contract, employer relationship & # 8211; employee, so that employees have all the rights and benefits, including the payment of their social security as employees and not as self-employed “.
The Court notes that it cannot agree with the Advocate General's position that the Act has created a new category of insurable employment with an increase in costs. Directive 2014/24/EU but also not in Article 80.2 of the Constitution because it does not bring and does not imply an increase of the expenses of the State.
The decision also states that the position of the Attorney General on the violation of Articles 122 and 125.1 of the Constitution “also does not find us in agreement”, since the current Law does not provide, nor allows the recruitment of persons in the Public Sector, but only regulates cases in which a person employed in the Public Sector under an employment contract or purchase of services is considered an “employee” for social security purposes.
Regarding the Transfer and Mortgage Mortgage (Amendment) (No. 2) Law of 2021, which was passed by the Plenary Session of the Parliament on July 8, 2021 and was reaffirmed, after its referral to the Parliament by the President of the Republic for review, the The court unanimously ruled that “it is not contrary to or inconsistent with Articles 26, 30, 58, 61 and 80.2 and, according to & # 8217; extension, to Article 179 of the Constitution, nor to the Principle of Discrimination of Powers and, therefore, may be issued “.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the decision states, the purpose of the Law is to amend the 1965 Law on Transfer and Mortgage of Real Estate in order to extend the targeted suspension of the mortgage sale process until October 31, 2021, due to the continuing and intensifying economic and social effects of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.
It states, inter alia, that the terms used by the Attorney General, that the extension of the suspension until October 31, 2021 “may” pose additional risks for the banks and that it will lead to an increase in the loan loss forecasts of the former Cooperative Central Bank. Bank, which have been transferred to Hellenic Bank and fall under the Guarantee Scheme, with a consequent significant increase in the claims of Hellenic Bank from the Cyprus Asset Management Company, making it “possible” to activate the guarantee of the Republic of Cyprus & 82; during the presentation & # 8211; completely inactivates the divestiture tool, “do not refer to an inevitable increase in budgetary expenditure, either in the near future or in the near future.”
that “it is not established from the material before us that the Law, which is short, temporary and of limited scope in terms of its implementation, will have the consequences suggested by the Attorney General, with a consequent increase of budget expenditures in the sense prescribed by case law “.
