clr/1968/1968_3_406.pdf

(2)of the Constitution of Cyprus or of Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forms part of the lawof Cyprusby virtueof The EuropeanConvention on Human Rights (Ratification) Law, 1962 (No. 39 of 1962). The facts sufficiently appear in the Judgment ofthe Court. Recourse. Recourse against the omission of the Respondent to give a due reply to the substance of Applicant's petition whereby he requested, inter alia, that the Cyprus Government should approach the British Military Authorities with a view to his being re-employed by them. Applicant in person. A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent. Cur. adv. vult. The following Judgment was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: The Applicant in this case, who appears to be a stateless person, is residing, for the time being, in Nicosia. 406 Without going, at great length, into the history of how hecame to bein Cyprus, itmight bestated that the Applicant, who was a NAAFI employee, was, originally, brought to Cyprus, in 1956, from Egypt, by the British Military Authorities, for reasons of personal safety, as he had become a personanongrata there; this was at the time when the British Forces withdrew from the Suez Canal Zone in Egypt. The War Department assured the then Government of the British Colony of Cyprus that the Applicant would not becomea burden ontheGovernment, i.e.that hisemployment in Cyprus would be guaranteed and that arrangements would be made by the War Department for his removal from the Island if and when he became unemployed. After his arrival in Cyprus the Applicant continued to work for NAAFI until the middle of 1957; then he became unemployed for a period of time and, eventually, in 1959, he was given employment by the British Military Authorities in Cyprus; such employment continued until the 30th of November, 1967, when it was terminated on the ground of redundancy; while being employed as, aforesaid, the Applicant was working in the areas known, from I960 onwards, as the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus. Due to his employment having been terminated the Applicant has become a person without any means of support; he told the Court that he is destitute. On the 3rd February, 1968, he petitioned the Respondent Council of Ministers. His petition is a lengthy paper to which there are attached copies of various relevant documents (see exhibit 2). He was requesting by such petition that the Cyprus Government should approach the British Military Authorities with a view to his being re-employed bythem; the Applicant'scontention beingthat the termination of his services was illegal, in that the British Military Authorities had undertaken to employ him for so long as his services continued to be satisfactory, and yet he was dismissed on the ground of redundancy. The first complaint of the Applicant in this recourse.is that he has not been given a due reply to the substance of his petition; he alleges that the reply given to him, which is dated the 10th May, 1968 (see exhibit 1), is not a duly reasoned one. 407 1968 July 29 ISAAC MIZRAHI v. REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS) 1968 July 29 A duly reasoned reply does not, in my opinion, have, necessarily, to be a lengthy one. ISAAC MIZRAHI V, REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS) The reply given to the Applicant by means of the letter of the 10th May, 1968 (exhibit 1) states that, with regard to his employment or re-employment by the British Military Authorities, "this is a matter in which the Cyprus Government cannot intervene". There is attached thereto copy of a letter (see exhibit 1A) addressed, on the 19th December, 1967, to an advocate acting, at the time, for the Applicant, in relation to the same matter; it is stated therein that the Republic cannot intervene in relation to the employment of the Applicant by the Sovereign Base Areas Authorities, as this is a matter between the Applicant and his employers. I find that exhibits 1 and 1A amount to a due reply to the substance of the petition of the Applicant and that they do constitute a duly reasoned reply, too, in the circumstances of the matter; the obvious reason for the refusal of the Cyprus Government to take action being that it has no locusstandi inthematter ofthedismissal of the Applicantbythe Sovereign Base Areas Authorities; when a reason is so obvious as all that no elaboration thereof is necessary. TheApplicant hascomplained, further, that the Respondent has not, in response to his petition, secured, for him and his wife, maintenance by the Authorities of the Sovereign Base Areas; nor has, Respondent, in the alternative, handed over the Applicant and his wife to the said Authorities. In this connection the Applicant has pointed out that he is a prohibited immigrant in Cyprus, under the provisions of the Aliens and Immigration Law, Cap. 105; and he has submitted that it is the duty of the Cyprus Government to apply the legislation in force and to expel him from the Republic, handing him over to the Sovereign BaseAreasAuthorities. He has argued that the failure of the Cyprus Government to do so, and its attitude as shown by the contents of the letter of the 10th May, 1968 (exhibit 1), render him a person living in the Republic in destitution, without the right to work, contrary to Articles 9, 25 and 28.2 of the Constitution, and contrary to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is part of the law of 408 Cyprus by virtue of the European Convention on Human Rights (Ratification) Law, 1962 (Law 39/62). In my opinion, there exists no duty of the Government of the Republic either to secure for the Applicant and his wifemaintenancefrom the Sovereign BaseAreasAuthorities, or to hand them over to such Authorities. Applicant may, indeed, be a prohibited immigrant, in the sense of Cap.105, and perhapsheisallowed to stayonin Cyprusby sufferance, but hisstatus as a prohibited immigrant does not entitle him to be handed over to, and be thrown into the lap of, the Sovereign Base Areas Authorities. Moreover, I cannot find anything, which has been done by the Government of Cyprus, which would show any trace of violation of any of the Articles of the Constitution of Cyprus, or of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, cited to me by the Applicant. In any case, the Cyprus Government has taken up the Applicant's casewiththeBritish MilitaryAuthorities, regarding his future, and there appears to exist a possibility of the Applicant being repatriated, by the British Military Authorities, to the United Kingdom, if he so wished; but he does not wish to go there, for reasons of health of his wife and for other reasons in relation to his alleged claim against the Sovereign Base Areas Authorities. Thereisno doubt that the Applicant isa very unfortunate person, who found himself unemployed, and in the midst of a most complicated situation regarding his presence in Cyprus. But it is not for this Court to pronounce in any way, at all,ontherightfulnessornotoftheterminationofhisemployment by the British Military Authorities; this Judgment does not concern in the least whatever rights he may, or may not, have in the matter. It appears that in this respect hte Applicant has already tried, unsuccessfully, to institute proceedings before the courts of the Sovereign Base Areas, and has also lodged a recourse against the United Kingdom with the Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe. It is up to him to pursue such remedies as he may deemfitto resort 409 1968 July 29 1968 July 29 to; and this Judgment should not be taken as affecting the outcome of any such effort of his. ISAAC MIZRAHI REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS) 1would like to conclude by drawing the attention of the Welfare Services in Cyprus to the plight of the Applicant, m c a g e ^ ^ a f e m & pOSition to render him any,pro tempore, ex gratia assistance; this is something for them, and not for me, to examine and decide upon. In the result this recourse fails and it is dismissed. But I am making no order as to costs. Application dismissed. No order as to costs. 410