Christou v Christou

• Jurisdiction: Chipre
• Date: 24 November 1964
• Court: Supreme Court (Cyprus)

Cyprus, Supreme Court.

(Zekia, President; Vassiliades, Triantafyllides, Munir and Josephides JJ.)

Christou

and

Christou.

The individual in international law Human rights and freedoms European Convention for Protection of The Constitution of Cyprus Right to proper conduct of legal proceedings Enforcement of maintenance order obtained abroad The law of Cyprus.

Summary: The facts.Mrs. Christou, the appellant, was in England where she applied for and obtained, for herself and her infant children, a provisional maintenance order against her husband, the respondent, who was in Cyprus. The order and relevant documents were forwarded to the District Court of Larnaca for the further proceedings envisaged under Section 6 of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Law, Cap. 16. During the proceedings the question arose whether the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Law was unconstitutional, and more particularly whether section 6 (3) of that Law was unconstitutional as limiting the respondent's defence to such defence only as he might have raised in the original proceedings before a foreign Court.

The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Law, section 6 (1), provides that where a maintenance order has been made by a court in England or Ireland, and the order is provisional only and has no effect unless and until confirmed by a court in Cyprus, a certified copy of the order, together with the depositions of witnesses and a statement of the grounds on which the order might have been opposed, are to be transmitted to Cyprus, and, if it appears that the person against whom the order was made is resident in Cyprus, a summons is to be issued calling upon the said person to show cause why that order should not be confirmed. Under sub-section (2) of the same section the Cyprus Court concerned is the District Court having jurisdiction where the aforesaid person happens to be. Sub-section (3) of the said same section provides that

At the hearing, it shall be open to the person on whom the summons was served to raise any defence which he might have raised in the original proceedings had he been a party thereto, but no other defence.

It was argued on behalf of the respondent first that the Law was unconstitutional in that it deprived him of access to the court assigned to him under the constitution, namely a Greek Communal Court rather than a District Court. The respondent argued further that Articles 30 (3) (b) and (c) of the Constitution were contravened because a respondent was not able to present his case before the court concerned as he was informed of the case against him after a provisional order had already been made; also, because a respondent was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant and her witnesses, and the defences he could raise were limited to those only that would have been open to him before the English court.

Article 30 (3) of the Constitution (which corresponds to Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950) provides:

3. Every person has the right

(b) to present his case before the court and to have sufficient time necessary for its preparation;

(c) to adduce or cause to be adduced his evidence and to examine witnesses according to law;

Held: that the provisions of the Maintenance...