1967 Aug. 17 [Loizou, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THECONSTITUTION CHRYSANTHOS P. KOUDOUNARIS CHRYSANTHOS P. KOUDOUNARIS, RJUBUC Applicant, and THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, Respondent. (Case No. 325/66J. Administrative and Constitutional Law—Recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution—Time within which such recourse may be made—Article 146.3 of the Constitution—Applicant's recourse dismissed as being out of time in viewof paragraph 3of Article 146 of the Constitution—Respondent's reply, dated the 18th October, 1966, to a letter dated the 1 \th October, 1966, of the Applicant's counsel, not amounting to a new decision reached after a fresh examination of the matter—Being merely informatory—Decision of theRespondent is that contained in a letter dated the 29th September, 1966, and communicated personally to the Applicant more than 75 days prior to the filing on the 31st December, 1966, of the present recourse—Therefore this recourse is out of time— See, also, herebelow. Elementary Education— School-teachers — Dismissals — Applicant's dismissal under the provisions of section 9 of the Teachers of Communal Elementary Schools Law. 1963 (Greek Communal Law No. 1 of I963J—Dismissal decided upon and communicated to Applicant in August 1965—Respondent's reply dated the 18/Λ October, 1966, confirming its previous decision dated the 29th September.
- whereby Respondent rejected Applicant's appli cation for re-employment dated the 5th September. 1966—Not amounting to a fresh decision—Merely informatory—Recourse filed on the ilst December. 1966, dismissed as having been filed out of time in view of Article 146.3 of the Constitution— See, also, above under Administrative and Constitutional Law. Recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution—Time within which such recourse may be made- Article 146.3—Decisions or acts which can he challenged by such recourse —Not new decision 479 (MINISTRY Ο Ϊ EDUCATION) ^Ut mereh' confirmatory or informatoryacts—Cannot be made thesubject of therecourse underArticle146—See, also, hereabove. Α Π _ CHRYSANTHOS P. KOUDOUNARIS REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION) Decisions or acts—Administrative decisions or acts—Merely confirmator y or informatory acts cannotbe challenged by means of the recourse underArticle 146 of the Constitution—See, also, above. Confirmatory or informatory acts—See above. Time—Time within which arecourse underArticle 146 of the Constitu tionmay be made—Article 146.3 of the Constitution—See above. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the Respondent not to re employ Applicant as a school-teacher. P. Laoutas, for the Applicant. G. Tornaritis, for Respondent. Cur. adv. vult. The following Judgment was delivered by: Loizou, J.: The Applicant was an elementary school-teacher on probation having been appointed in September,
- On the 13th August, 1965, the committee of Educational Services of the Ministry of Education acting under the provisions of section 9 of Law No. 7/63 of the Greek CommunalChamber dismissed the Applicant from the service on the ground that his work was not considered satisfactory. The Applicant did not challenge thedecision to dismiss him by recourse but instead he applied to the President of the Republic requesting him to intervene in the matter. Over a year later i.e.on the5th September, 1966, the Applicant wrote a letter to the committee requesting them to re-employ him to his former post. This letter was forwarded to the com mittee by Applicant's counsel under cover of a letter signed by him and bearing the S2me date. Both these letters have been produced and are exhibit 2 in this case. On the 29th September, 1966, the committee replied to the Applicant rejecting his application and informing him that they could not re-employ him to a post for which his services had already been considered unsatisfactory (exhibit 5). 480 On the 11th October, 1966 Applicant's counsel, apparently unaware of exhibit 5, wrote to the Respondents a letter (exhibit 3) svhich reads as follows: «Αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι υπάρχουν τώρα άρκεταϊ κεναί θέσεις δημοδιδασκαλων ούτως ώστε να δύνασθε ευκόλως πλέον νά αναθεωρήσετε την προγενεστέραν σας άπόφασιν περί τερματισμού τών υπηρεσιών τοϋ πελάτου μου κ. Χρύσανθου Π. Κουδουνάρη τέως διδασκάλου.
- Την 5/9/1966 άπετάθην προς ΰμας δια τον έπαναδιρισμόν του και δέν ετυχον απαντήσεως μέχρι σήμερον.
- "Οθεν καλεϊσθε όπως, έν όψει τοϋ γεγονότος εις την πάρα. 1 ανωτέρω επισπεύσετε την άπάντησιν τακτοποιοϋντες το ζήτημα». To this letter the Respondents replied on the 18th October,
- This letter is exhibit 4 and reads as follows: «Εις άπάντησιν της Οπό ήμερομηνίαν Π 'Οκτωβρίου 1966 επιστολής σας πληροφορεΐσθε ότι εϊς την αϊτησιν τοϋ Χρ. Π. Κουδουνάρη δια διορισμόν εΐς την ΣτοιχειώδηΈκπαιδευσιν εδόθη άπάντησις την 29ην Σεπτεμβρίου, άντίγραφον της οποίας σας παραθέτω: ΈΙς άπάντησιν της ΰπό ήμερομηνίαν 5/9/66 επιστολής σας πληροφορεϊσθαι ότι ή Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή Εκπαιδευτικής Υ π η ρεσίας δέν δύναται νά σας προσφέρη διορισμόν εΐς θέσιν δια τήν οποίαν ή υπηρεσία σας εκρίθη ήδη ανεπαρκής*». As a result, on the 31st December, 1966, the Applicant filed the present recourse praying "for a declaration of the court that the decision of the Respondent communicated to Applicant's counsel on the 19th October, 1966, by letter dated 18th October, 1966, by which Applicant's counsel was informed that the com mittee of Educational Services was not prepared to re-employ Applicant as a school-teacher, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever". Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the recourse is out of time and both counsel agreed that this preliminary point be determined first. By virtue of Article 146.3 of the Constitution a recourse "shall be made within 75 days of the date when the decision or act was published or if not published and in the case of an omission, when it came to the knowledge of the person making the recourse'-'. 481 1967 Aug. Π CHRYSANTHOS P. KOUDOUNARIS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY O F EDUCATION) 1967 Aug: 17 CHRYSANTHOS P. KOUDOUNARIS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION) There is no question, indeed it is admitted, that the reply of the Respondents to the Applicant dated 29th September, 1966, exhibit 5, was communicated to the Applicant personally more than 75 days prior,to the filing of the recourse. Counsel for the Applicant has explained that the Applicant did not show this letter to his counsel and submitted that the tetter dated 18th October, 1966, exhibit 4, which was received by counsel on the 19th October, 1966 amounts to a new administrative act and that, therefore, the recourse is within the time limit prescribed by the Constitution. Having considered this matter carefully, in the light of the materia' before me, 1 have come to the conclusion that the letter dated 18th October, 1966, exhibit 4, can in no way be treated as amounting to a new decision in the matter reached after a fresh examination thereof. In my view the decision of the Respondent iscontained in exhibit 5which was communicated to the Applicant more than 75days prior to thefilingof the recourse and exhibit 4 is merely informatory. Having reached this conclusion I must uphold the submission of counsel for the Respondent that the recourse is out of time in view of Article 146.3 of the Constitution. The recourse is, therefore, dismissed with costs which 1 assess at £
- Application dismissed with £ 1 2 - costs. 482