由此 -7- A B C 15. The 1st applicant has appealed against the judge’s refusal to declare that the Chief Executive, in failing to appoint a date for the A B C implementation of IOC Ordinance, has acted unlawfully. D E D 16. There is no appeal against the second declaration. In any E event, we agree with the judge’s conclusion and the reasons stated by him, F namely, that: “126. For the reasons given, I have concluded that art.30 of the Basic Law and art.14 of the Bill of Rights (both as read with art.39(2) of the Basic Law), in protecting the same fundamental right in essentially the same manner, incorporate into their constitutional requirements the need for the existence of laws which make for legal certainty and require that any limitations on the right, as a characteristic of that legal certainty, be proportionate. On that basis, I fail to see how it can be said that s.33 meets the requirements of those constitutional articles upon which the applicants have relied.” G H I J K The appeal O S J M IOC Ordinance R I L N Q H The respondent has appealed against the 1st declaration. L P G K 17. M F N O 18. In para. 97 of the judgment, the judge concluded as follows: P “97. In summary, it has not been demonstrated to me that the Chief Executive, in failing to appoint a date for the implementation of the IOC Ordinance, has exceeded his powers and thereby acted unlawfully. I am satisfied he has at all times acted within his powers. There will be no declaration that he has acted unlawfully nor will there be a declaration that he must forthwith appoint a day for implementing the IOC Ordinance.” Q R S T T U U V V