clr/1977/1977_3_411.pdf

(1)or

(2)of the Law. As against this decision applicant filed various recourses which were eventually withdrawn by him. By means of the present recourse, which was filed on May 2, 1977 theapplicant claimed thefollowing relief: (

1. a)An order of the Court ordering the respondents to register the applicant as civil engineer and architect; 25 <
2. jb)an order of the Court ordering the respondents to 411 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S, PAPADEMETRIOU issue and grant to the applicant a licence of civil engineer and architect on payment by the applicant of the prescribed fees; and (C) v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS an order of the Court Ghattiheapplicant possesses the required qualifications to be registered as civil engineer and architect since 1963. Respondents contended that no recourse lies against them as there exists no decision, act or omission, emanating from them which can be made the subject matter of a recourse under the provisionof Article 146*of theConstitution. 10 Held,(afterstating that the remedies claimedwere not directed against any particular decision, act or omissionof the respondentsand they could bedealt with underArticle134.2 of the Constitution and that applicantwas heard becausehe was appearing in person) that the applicant is complaining 15 against .theoriginal decision of the respondents dated July 15, 1964 and in such a case this recourse cannot be entertained as it was not made within the time provided by Article 146.3 of theConstitution; that, moreover, evenif it could beassumed that the recourse was directed against any subsequent deci- 20 sions of the respondents on the samesubject, these subsequent decisions were confirmatory of theoriginal one and they could not be made the subject matter of a subsequent recourse; and that, accordingly,.theapplication mustbe dismissed. Applicationdismissed. 25 Oases referred to: Varnavav. TheRepublic

(1968)3C.L.R. 566. Recourse. Recourse for, inter alia,an order of the Court ordering the respondents to register the applicant as civil engineer 30 and architect. Applicant inperson. /.Loizidou (Mrs.), for therespondents. Cur.adv.vult. * Quoted at pp. 413-414 post. 412 5 10 Thefollowing judgmentwasdeliveredby:MALACHTOS,J.: The applicant in this recourse, which is filed under Article 146 of the Constitution, claims, as stated therein,thefollowingremedies: (

1. a)An Order of theCourt ordering the respondents to register the applicant as civil engineer and architect; (
2. b)an Order of the Court ordering'the respondents to issue and grant to the applicant a licenceof civil engineer and architect on payment by the applicantof theprescribedfees;and (
3. c)anOrder of theCourtthat theapplicantpossesses the required qualifications to be registered as civil engineer and architect since 1963. 15 The opposition is based on only one legal ground, namely, that the applicant is not entitled to be registered as civil engineer or architect since no new administrative act or decision was taken or published and soArticle 146 of the Constitution does not apply. In other words, nore20 courselies against therespondents as there exists nodecision, act oromission, emanating from them which can be the subject matter of a complaint under the provisionsof Article 146 of the Constitution. This Article reads:25 30 35 "146.1 The Supreme Constitutional Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally ona recourse made to it on a complaint that a decision, an act or omission of anyorgan, authority or person, exercising any executive or administrative authority is contrary to any of the provisions of the Constitution or of any law or is made in excess or in abuse of powers vested in such organ or authority or person. 2. Such a recourse may be made by a person whose any existing legitimate interest, which he has either as a person or by virtue of being a member of a Community, is adversely and directly affected bysuchdecision oractoromission. 3. Such a recourse shall be made within seventyfive days of the date when the decision or act was 413 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND'CIVIL ENGINEERS 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS published or, if not published and in the case of an omission, when it cameto the knowledge of theper-; sonmaking therecourse. 4 5. 6. Thehistoryofthiscaseisasfollows: The applicant on 22nd June, 1964, submitted to the respondents, whoare theBoard for Registration ofArchitects and Civil Engineers, established under section 3 of 10 the Architects and Civil Engineers Law, 1962, (Law4 1 / 62), an application to be registered as an architect and civil engineer. His application was accompanied by certificates showinghis qualifications. On 15th July, 1964, the applicant's application was 15 examined by the respondents and was rejected on the ground that his certificates were not of the standard required by section 7

(1)or 7

(2)of Law41/62, as amended by Law 7/64. Such decision was communicated to the applicant on 20thJuly, 1964. 20 Section7ofLaw41/62 readsasfollows:"7.-(

1. l)A person shall be entitled to be registered as an Architect if he satisfies the Board that he isof goodcharacter, and that(
2. a)he is the holder of a diploma or degree in 25 architecture of the Ethnikon Metsovion Polytechnion of Athens or of the Istanbul TeknikUniversitesi;or (
3. b)he is the holder of a diploma or degree in architecture of such other University orInsti- 30 tution of a standard equivalent to thosementioned in paragraph (
4. a)above as may from time to time be approved by the Council of Ministers on the advice of the Board and, until theBoard isconstituted, by the Council 35 of Ministers, by notification published in the Official Gazetteof theRepublic;or 414 (
5. c)he is an associate member or fellow of the Royal Instituteof British Architects; (
6. d)he is the holder of a qualification which is recognised by the Royal Institute of British Architects for exemption from their final examination and has had at least one year's practical experience acquired after obtaining such qualification: 10 15 Provided that if any such person satisfies the Board that he has been unable to be admitted to the office of any Registered Architect or Registered Civil En­ gineer in Cyprus for the purpose of acquiring such practical experience, such person shall be entitled to acquire such practical experience at the office of an Architect or Civil Engineer in the public service of the Republic.

(2)A person shall be entitled to be registered as a Civil Engineer if he satisfies the Board that he is of good character,and that - 20 25 30 (

1. a)he is the holder of a diploma or degree in civil engineering of the Ethnikon Metsovion Polytechnion of Athens or of the Istanbul Teknik Universitesi; or (
2. b)he is the holder of a diploma or degree in civil engineering of such other University or Institution of a standard equivalent to those mentioned in paragraph (
3. a)above as may from time to time be approved by the Coun­ cil of Ministers on the advice of the Board and, until the Board is constituted, by the Council of Ministers, by notification publish­ ed in the Official Gazetteof the Republic; or (
4. c)he is an associate member or member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in London; 35 40 (
5. d)he is the holder of a qualification which is re­ cognised by theInstitution of Civil Engineers in London for exemption from their exami­ nation Ά ' and *B' and has had at least one year's practical experience acquired after ob­ taining such qualification: 415- 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v, BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS Provided that if any such person satisfies the Board that he has been unable to be admitted to the office of any Registered Architect or Registered Civil Engineer in Cyprus for the purpose of acquiring such practical experience, such person shall be entitled to acquire such practical experience at the office of an Architect or Civil Engineer in the public service of the Republic". 5 . The applicant on 28th July, 1964, filed Recourse-No. 92/64 against the respondent Board and claimed a de- 10 claration that the decision of the respondents contained in their letter of the 20th July, 1964, by which they decided not to grant applicant's application for admission or enrolment as an architect and civil engineer, wasnull and void and of no effect whatsoever. In view of the fact 15 that certain legal issues arising in the said Recourse were the same as those arising in Recourse No. 218/63, and ten other similar cases, it was directed by the trial Judge that all thesecases should beheard together on theselegal issues. After hearing all parties concerned in the above cases, the trial judge on the 11th December, 1965, issued his decision onthelegalpointsinvolved. The applicant as against this decision filed Revisional Appeal No. 8, whichwas heard by the Full Bench of this 25 Court and was determined on the 30th June, 1966. The judgment of the trial Judge is reported in the

(1965)3 C.L.R. 167 and thejudgment of the.Full Bench is reported in

(1966)3 C.L.R. 671.In delivering the judgmentof the Full Bench Mr. Justice Vassiliades, as he then was, 30 had thistosay,atpage675: "Besides expressing the Court's full appreciation for the assistance received from all learned and able counsel who addressed us, I do not propose dealing here with any part of their submissions which have 35 been considered and discussed by Mr. Justice Josephides in the judgment just delivered in Kyriakides' case (Rev. AppealNo.9). Following as we do, in this case, the judgment in Kyriakides'casefor the samereasons as those stated 40 therein, we arrive at the same result. We allow the 416 20 5 10 15 cross-appeal of theBoard; andwedismisstheappeal. . The attack on the validity under the Constitution, of - section 7and 9of theArchitects andCivilEngineers Law in their form at the material time, fails for the purposes of this recourse. The record shall now be returned to the learned Judge who has been dealing with the matter so far, for further consideration and decision on the merits, if the applicant still thinks that his remedy lies in theseproceedings; and not in establishing, in due course, that his numerous and various qualifications as described in his application are 'of standard equivalent to those' provided in the statute,orthosedeclared assuch, bythe appropriate authority. There will beJudgment in this appeal (Revisional Appeal, No. 8) and orders accordingly. With no order astocostsintheappeal". After the case was sent back to the trial Court and on 10th September, 1966, counsel appearing for the applicant applied and obtained leave to withdraw the recourse and the court made an order striking out the recourse with no order as to costs. On the31st August, 1970,the applicantfiled Recourse No.251/70onthesamesubject matter against—

1. The Government oftheRepublicof Cyprus, through the Attorney-General,
2. The Council of Ministers of the Government of the Republicof Cyprusand
3. The Councilfor Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers, the present respondents, claiming in effect a declaration of the court that the decision of the Council of Ministers, respondent No. 2, dated 27th June, 1970, not to approvefor thepurpose of theArchitects and Civil Engineers Law 1962, the institutions from which the apphcant obtained certain academic qualifications, wasnull and void. The applicant also claimed a declaration of the court that respondent No.3in advising respondents No.2 to dismiss his application for registration, werewrong. It must benoted here that the applicant on 27th July, 1966, filed against the Council of Ministers and the respondent 417^
4. Nov..15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v> BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS Board Recourse No. 184/66 claiming against the Board in that recourse a declaration that the decision of therespondentsnotto approvetheapplicant's degreesundersection7

(1)(b)ofLaw41/62,isnullandvoid. On 3rd December, 1966, Counsel appearing for the 5 applicant applied for leaveto withdraw that recourse and so the trial Judge made an Order striking it out. The reasonsfor withdrawing thesaidrecoursewerethattherehad not yet been taken a decision by the Council of Ministers on hisapplication thathisqualifications shouldbeequally 10 treated as those mentioned in section 7 of the Law. On the 18th February, 1971, the applicant withdrew his recourse against the respondent No. 3 Board. It was objected on behalf of the remaining two respondents that the applicant in that recourse was not attacking an executory decision, which could be attacked by a recourse, and this point was heard and determined by the court in that recourse against the applicant. The judgment of the Court was issued on the 28th January, 1974, and ispublishedin the

(1974)3C.L.R. 28. 15 20 On 2nd February, 1973, applicant submitted to the respondents another application for registration as an architect and civil engineer. This new application was considered by the respondents who by their letter dated 25 5th May, 1973, informed the applicant that in view of thefact that nonewmaterialwasplacedbefore themcompared with his previous application for registration as architect and civilengineer their previous negative answer applied. 30 On the 13th April, 1973,applicant filed RecourseNo. 134/73 against the omission of the respondents to reply to applicant's application dated 2nd February, 1973. By their opposition to Recourse No. 134/73 the respondents alleged,interalia, t (

1. a)that they gave their reply to the applicant's application of2nd February, 1973,by their letter dated 5th May,1973; 35 (
2. b)that there was no new decision on the part of the respondents as no new material wasplaced before 40 418 them by apphcant for consideration and in any case by their letter dated 5th May, 1973, therespondents confirmed their previous decision. On the 18th October, 1973, the Recourse 134/73 was 5 withdrawnwithcostsagainst theapplicant. On the 18th July, 1973, applicant filed Recourse No. 263/73 against the decision of the respondents contained in their letter dated 5th May, 1973,mentioned above. On the l-2th July, 1976, counsel appearing for the ap10 plicant, and in the presence of the applicant, applied for leavetowithdrawRecourseNo.263/73.LeavewasgrantedandthisRecoursewasstruck out. .As it appears from the record of proceedings counsel appearing for applicant made the following statement: 15 20 "At thisstage, after explaining to myclient thelegal position myclient will apply to the Council of Ministers under section 7

(1)(b) and 7

(2)(b) of theLaw so that his qualifications will be recognised according to the Law, and reserves his right to file a new recourse if the decision of the Council of Ministers doesnot satisfy him. Applicant who understands the situation has expressed his thanks to the Court and states now himself that he will apply to theCouncil ofMinisters. 25 Apphcant applies for leave to withdraw the present recourse". Itisclear from the application filed in this recourse on the 2nd May, 1977, that the remedies claimed are not directed against any particular decision, act or omission of 30 therespondents, and, therefore, could bedealt with under the provisions of Article 134.2 of the Constitution which provides that when a recourse appears to be primafacie frivolousthe court may, after hearing arguments byor on behalf of the parties concerned, dismiss such recourse 35 without apublic hearing if satisfied that such recourseis, in fact frivolous. However, in view of the fact that the applicant was appearing in person he was given alllatitude and he was heard with all patience both on relevant 419 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v; BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 1977 Nov. 15 DEMETRIOS S. PAPADEMETRIOU v. BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS. and irrelevant matters. As it appears from his address to the court the applicant is complaining against the original decision of the respondent Board dated 15th July, 1964, by which his application to be registered as an architect and civil engineer was rejected on the ground that his certificates were not of the standard required by section 7

(1)and 7

(2)of theLaw. In such a case this recourse cannot be entertained by this court as it was not made within the time provided by Article 146.3 of the Constitution. But even if we assume that this recourse is directed against any subsequent decisions of the respondents on the same subject, these subsequent decisions were confirmatory of the original one and, therefore, cannot be the subject matter of a subsequent recourse. (See in this' respect Varnava v. The Republic

(1968)3 C.L.R. 566). This recourse, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. On the question of costsI makeno order. Application dismissed. No order as to costs. 420. 10 15