The law mandating that public officials including the attorney-general declare their wealth and income, also known as ‘pothen esches’, is legal, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on Wednesday.

The law had been referred to the court by President Nikos Christodoulides after it was approved by parliament, with it now being mandated that all public officials now submit an online wealth declaration.

The law was taken to court after an annex which included specific officials and public figures who are obliged to submit declarations, most notably the attorney-general, was passed by the House of Representatives.

In addition to the attorney-general, those required to submit wealth declarations as a result of the law’s latest update include the deputy attorney-general, the director of the president’s press office and district governors. Judges remain exempt from submitting such declarations.

The legal service issued a statement after the court made its ruling, saying the decision will be “fully respected” by incumbent attorney-general George Savvides and his deputy Savvas Angelides.

It added that both Savvides and Angelides submitted wealth declarations when they took their current offices “due to the previous capacity they had”, with Savvides having served as justice minister and Angelides as defence minister under former president Nicos Anastasiades.

The decision to declare the law legal was also welcomed by Disy which described the ruling as a “vindication of parliament” and an “important step in favour of transparency”.

“Disy serves the principle of transparency everywhere. We serve it with our actions and with seriousness, without resulting to populist outbursts or a desire to exploit.”

Akel MP and spokesman Giorgos Koukoumas said the decision left Christodoulides “doubly exposed”.

“The ruling confirms that the law does not impact the independence of the institution of the attorney-general but, on the contrary, promotes transparency and accountability, and strengthens public trust in the institution,” he said.

“Christodoulides should never have taken this to court. He should have pursued transparency and not tried to have laws written to this end declared unconstitutional. To date, this simple question remains unanswered: why does it bother Christodoulides that the attorney-general and his assistant will be required to submit wealth declarations like so many other officials?”

Court president Antonis Liatsos confirmed when reading the court’s decision that the law does not violate the principle of separation of powers inside the government, despite the high rank of those impacted by the law, including the attorney-general and his deputy.

In fact, he said, it is of utmost importance for the integrity of the institutions in question to be secured for wealth declarations to be made by the holders of the posts.

With this in mind, he said the court’s decision promotes “transparency and accountability and the strengthening of the necessary trust” in Cyprus’ governmental institutions.

The court’s decision stated that the attorney-general and deputy are “members of the legal service, independent of and not subordinate to any ministry”, and that therefore, “they are not equated with any judicial power, and their qualities and responsibilities are not consistent with those of judicial officials.”

As such, they said, the law in question does not constitute executive or legislative interference with the judicial branch, as, in effect, the attorney-general and his deputy are not part of the judicial branch of government.

The law, therefore, “does not alter any of the conditions regarding judges’ service”. This means judges are still exempt from issuing wealth declarations as the decision, “does not affect any of the principles which inherently fall within the judges’ function, including matters of independence, impartiality, and tenure”.

To this end, constitutional references to judges’ rights in other areas which formed part of the case against the law were also discarded, including the reference to Article 153 of the constitution, which states that “the remuneration and other conditions of service of any Supreme Court judge may not be changed to his disadvantage after his appointment.”

The court confirmed in this case that, with regard to the attorney-general and his deputy, being asked to submit wealth declarations “does not constitute and does not fall within the meaning of ‘conditions of service’ and does not change or alter any conditions of service”.

It added that the law “certainly does not affect the independence of the institution of the attorney-general or the powers it has as determined by the constitution”.

On the contrary, it said, the law “promotes transparency and accountability”,

The court also expeditiously dismissed Christodoulides’ questioning of whether parliament has the right to legislate on the matter, saying parliament is “the body par excellence to legislate on such matters”, and that “it is recognised as the constitutional organ of the state for determining the content of legislation.”

“Given this to be the case, parliament acted within the scope of its own responsibilities, and thus there is no scope for judicial intervention,” it added.