The controversy over the nomination of former judge Mr Hugh O'Flaherty as vice-president of the European Investment Bank is likely to be reignited today when the Supreme Court hears an appeal challenging the Government's decision.
Mr Denis Riordan, a college lecturer from Clonconane, Redgate, Co Limerick, is taking the appeal after losing his High Court action.
The case has delayed any further action being taken by the Government on the appointment of Mr O'Flaherty.
Mr Riordan lost his claim in the High Court that the procedure adopted to nominate Mr O'Flaherty represented a failure on the part of the Government to hold all citizens equal before the law.
On June 3rd, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, in his reserved judgment, said the High Court should not intervene in the Government's nomination. He said he was satisfied the Government made an executive decision when it nominated Mr O'Flaherty and he did not accept Mr Riordan's submission that this was a mere administrative procedure.
Mr Riordan, who always represents himself, has argued that the Government's method of nominating Mr O'Flaherty to the EIB was unfair, unjust and unconstitutional. It was the sole ground on which Mr Riordan was allowed to proceed with the High Court case.
After losing in the High Court, Mr Riordan lodged papers to appeal to the Supreme Court. On July 8th, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, fixed today for the hearing of the appeal and adjourned until then an application by Government lawyers to strike out various grounds of Mr Riordan's appeal and an application by Mr Riordan to add new grounds.
The lawyer for the Government and State, Mr James O'Reilly SC, gave an undertaking that his clients would not take any further steps in relation to Mr O'Flaherty until the hearing of the appeal.
As it is a constitutional case, five judges will be required to hear it. It is understood that Mr Justice Hardiman may stand down from the case as he used to devil with Mr O'Flaherty.
It is not unusual for a judge of the High Court to be seconded to the Supreme Court bench for a case. Often the reason is that a Supreme Court judge has had some previous involvement with a case, either as a barrister or as a judge in a lower court.