clr/1980/1980_3_454.pdf

(1)* of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67) and was punished with the sentence of compulsory retirement from the service for all the three offences. Section 65

(1)reads: "

(1)All information written or oral which has come to the knowledge of a public officer in the course of the performance of his duties shall be confidential and shall not be communicated to any person except for the proper performance of official duty or on the express direction of the appropriate authority concerned". 454 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 Michaelides v. Republic The particulars of the above offence were that the applicant has photo-copied, without authority, a confidential document. Upon a recourse against theabove decision of the Commission counsel for the applicant mainly contended that even if the document in question wasphotographed bythe applicant once it was never communicated or used outside the service, no disciplinary charge could be made or established against the applicant of that offence. Held, that fortheoffence ofviolatingthesecrecy ofthe service to be committed there must be communication of the oflBcial document to persons outside the service; that in this particular case there wasnocommunication or leakage ofthesaid official document to any person outside the service; that, therefore, the Commission wrongly found the applicant guilty of the offence under section 65of Law 33/67; and that, accordingly, the sub judice punishment must be annulled. Held, further, that the disciplinary decision in this case, whereby several disciplinary offences by the applicant were punished by a single sentence, is rendered voidable as a whole even if only oneof such offences could not in lawconstitute a disciplinary offence because it becomes uncertain whether the . disciplinary organ would have imposed the same sentence solely for the other acts which really constitute disciplinary offences. (See Kyriakopoulos on the "Lawof Civil Servants" 1954 at p.289). Subjudice decision annulled. Cases referred to: Rex v. M.

(1915)32 T.L.R. 1, C C A . 30 35 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to convict the apphcant on three disciplinary offences and pass on him a sentence of compulsory retirement. L.N. Clerides, for the applicant. A.M. Angelides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. HADJIANASTASSIOU J. read the following judgment. Time and again it is said that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on a recourse made to it on acom- 455 Hadjlanastassiou J. Mlchaelldes v. Republic

(1980)plaint that adecision,an actor omission ofanyorgan,authority or person exercising any executive or administrative authority is contrary to any of the provisions of this Constitution or of any law or is made in excess or in abuse of powers vested in such organ or authority or person. On 14thApril, 1978,theapphcant, Mikis Michaelides, feeling aggrievedbecauseofhisdisciplinarypunishmentviz.,hisdismissal from the serviceby therespondent Commissionfiledthepresent recourse claiming the following relief: A declaration of the honourable Court that the decision of respondents to convict 10 applicant on three disciplinary offences and pass a sentence of compulsory retirement on him which was communicated to applicant by letter dated 27thJanuary, 1978bythe respondents, should be declared null and void and ofno effect whatsoever. The apphcant has been appointed in the public service in 15 1960 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since the 19th May, 1961, he has been holding the post of a deciphering officer in thesaid Ministry. On 18thOctober, 1976,a criminal investigation was initiated against him and on 19th October, 1976 the applicant was arrested on the strength of a judicial warrant, 20 but before his arrest he was asked to give a statement to the police. After hisarrest hegaveanother statement tothepolice, andaninvestigating officer hasbeenappointed on22ndOctober, 1976 and the officer concerned was notified of his appointment by the Council of Ministers on 26th October, 1976. On 20th 25 October, 1976,the Commission at itsmeetinghaving considered the contents of a letter addressed to them by the DirectorGeneral of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, decided that the apphcant should be interdicted from the exercise of the powers and functions of his office pending a police investigation, and 30 until thefinaldisposal of hiscase. Theapplicant was informed accordingly by a letter dated 20th October, 1976. On 21st December, 1976,the Director-General of the same ministry by a letter submitted the report of the investigating officer together withother supporting evidenceaswellasthedisciphnarycharges 35 framed by the Attorney-General for the Commission to take action inaccordance withtheprovisions ofs.82

(2)ofthePublic Service Law 1967 (Law No. 33/67). On 23rd December, 1976, the Commission at its meeting decided that action should betakenunder therelevant provision 40 of the Public Service Law and the case wasfixedfor plea on 456 5 3 C.L.R. 5 10 MIchaelldes τ. Republic Hadjlanastasston J. 17th January,

1. On that date the Commission having considered the preliminary objections raised by counsel for the applicant adjourned the case; and on 29th January, 1977, overruled the preliminary objections raised, and the hearing of thecasewas fixed on 3rd March,
2. On that date the hearing of the case was resumed and finally it was concluded, after some adjournments, on 21st July,
3. The Commission having reservedits ruling, which was finally delivered on 17th November 1977, in finding the apphcant guilty onthe three disciphnary offences against him, had this to say: " Ή Επιτροπή, άφοΰ έμελέτησε μετά προσοχή? τάς ενώπιον της μαρτυρία* καΐ τα σχετικά τεκμήρια, ευρίσκει δτι- 15 20 25 30 35 40 (α) κατά τον ουσιώδη χρόνου τον αναφερόμενουέν τη πρώτη κατηγορία ό καθ* οΟ αϊ κατηγορία! ΪΒωσβ συνεντεύξεις καΐ/ή απαντούσε επί θεμάτων υπηρεσιακής φύσεως ίΐς ερωτηματολόγια προσώπων είς τήν ύπηρίσίαν άλλου Κράτους. Σχετικοί προς τοϋτο είναι ctl μαρτυρίαι των κ.κ. Μουρουζίδη καΐ Πελαγίας, τάς οποίας ή Επι­ τροπή έποδέχεται καΐ έΐ ώυ προκύπτει ότι αϊ ένέργείαι τοΰ κατηγορουμένου αποσκοπούσαν είς τήν έΣυπηρέτησιυ Εένων υπηρεσιών. ΈπΙ πλέον, ό ίδιος ό κατη­ γορούμενος παρεδέχθη τάς έν λόγω έυεργείας του. (β) κατά τον ουσιώδη χρόνου τόυ αναφερόμενουέυτη δευτέρα κατηγορία ό κατηγορούμευος έφωτοτύπησε, άνευ έΐουσιοδοτήσεως αντίγραφου τοΰ άκρως απορρήτου τηλετυπικοϋ μηνύματος ύπ* άρ. 318/
4. Σχετική προς τοϋτο είναι ή μαρτυρίατοΰ Κλητήρος 'Ανδρέα Όρφανοϋ, ήτις έγινε δεκτή υπό της Επιτροπής, καΐ όστις όταν ήυοιΕε τό Γραφείου πρώτος τήν πρωίαν της 18.10.76 άνευρε έπϊ τοΰ εδάφους τό άυτίγραφον, χρώματος ρόζ, τοΰ έν λόγω μηνύματος καΐ τό όποιον έν συνεχεία παρέ­ δωσε είς τόν κ. 'Αλλαγιώτην, Άρχειοφύλακα Εμπι­ στευτικού 'Αρχείου τοΰ Υπουργείου ΈΕωτερικώυ. Έυδεικτική είναι ωσαύτως ή μαρτυρία τοΰ κ. Σελίπα, ή οποία επίσης γίνεται δεκτή υπό της Επιτροπής, και Οόποιος κατόπιν έρεύνης είς τόν κάλαθουτων άχρηστων τοΰ δωματίου της τηλετυπικής υπηρεσίας, άνευρε τό τσαλακωμένον άυτίγραφον τοΰ ιδίου μηνύματος καΐ τό όποιον, βάσει τής μαρτυρίας τοΰ κ. Άλλαγιώτη, θά έπρεπε να έφυλάττετο είς είδικόν χρηματοκιβωτίου τής τηλετνπικης υπηρεσίας τοΰ οποίου τό κλειδί είχε 457 Hadjianastassiou J. Michaelides v. Republic

(1980)πάντοτε ύπό τήυ φύλα£ίν του ό κατηγορούμενος έστω καΐ έάν ούτος ευρίσκεται έπ' αδεία ή έκτος υπηρεσίας. 'Ωσαύτως, έκ της μαρτυρίας τοΰ κ. Βυρίδη καταφαίυεται δτι ουδεμία εγκρισις υπήρχε διά τήν φωτοτύπησιυ αντιγράφου τοΰ περί οΰ ό λόγος μηυύματος. Σχετική 5 προς τοϋτο είναι και ή παραδοχή τοΰ κατηγορουμένου διά τήν διάπραΣιν τοΰ Ιδίου αδικήματος. "Αν καΐ ή Ύπεράσπισις Ισχυρίσθη ότι τό αναφερόμενου είς τό Κατηγορητήριου έγγραφου δέυ ήδύυατο νά θεωρηθή ώς απόρρητουκα!τούτο άφ*έυόςλόγω τοΰ περιεχομένου 10 του καΐ άφ*έτερου λόγω τής δημοσιεύσεως του είς τήυ Εφημερίδα "Φιλελεύθερος", ή Επιτροπή είναι της γνώμης ότι έάυκαΐ κατάπόσου έυέγγραφου εϊυαι απόρ­ ρητου ή όχι, τούτο δέν είναι έργου τοΰ υπαλλήλου υά άποφασίση, προσέτι δέ ούτος υπέχει ύποχρέωσιν, 15 ανεξαρτήτως οίασδήποτε προσωπικής του γνώμης, νά θεωρή εν έγγραφου ώς απόρρητου οσάκις τούτο περι­ γράφεται ώς τοιούτο· καΐ (γ) κατά του ουσιώδη χρόυου τόν αναφερόμενου έν τη τρίτη κατηγορία ό κατηγορούμενος προέβη είς συνεργασίαν επί υπηρεσιακών θεμάτωυ μετά μή έΕουσιοδοτημένων προσώπων ήτοι τώυ Ροζάυη καΐ Πίκου ΚΥΠ 'Ελλάδος, τοϋτο δέ παρεδέχθη ό ίδιος προς τους κ.κ. Μουρουζίδηυ και Πελαγίας οΐτιυες έμαρτύρησαν τούτο ενώπιον τής 'Επιτροπής κατά τήν άκρόασιν της υποθέσεως. 20 25 Έν όψει των προαναφερθέντων ή 'Επιτροπή ευρίσκει τόν κατηγορούμενον ένοχου έπί τώυ έυ λόγω τριών κατηγοριών. Ώς έκτούτου ή Επιτροπή άπεφάσισεν όπως,πρίν ή χωρήση είς τήν έπιβολήν πειθαρχικής ποινής, παράσχη είς τόν κατή- 30 γορούμενον τήν εύκαιρίαν νά προτάϊη ενώπιον αυτής οιουσ­ δήποτε λόγους θά είχε προς μετριασμού τής έπιβληθησομένης εϊς αυτόν πειθαρχικής ποινής καΐ όπως προς τόν σκοπόν τούτον καλέση αυτόν όπως έμφανισθή ενώπιον της κατά τήν 29ην Νοεμβρίου, 1977, καΐ ώραν 11.30 π.μ." 35 And in English it reads: "The Commission, having carefully considered theevidence before it and the relevant exhibits, finds that (a) Regarding the first charge, during the relevant period 458 Mlchaelides τ. Republic Hadjianastasstou J. the accused gave interviews and/or replied to questions on subjects of a service nature, put to him by persons serving with another state. Relevant to this is the evidence of Messrs. Mourouzides and Pelayias, which the Commission accepts, and from which it appears that the actions of the accused had the purpose of serving foreign services. Furthermore, the accused admitted the said activities; during the relevant period which is mentioned in the second charge the accused has photo-copied without authority, a copy of a highly confidential telex com­ munication under No. 318/76. Relevant to that was the evidence of messenger Andreas Orphanou which has been accepted by the Commission, and who, when he opened the office first on the morning of the 18th October, 1976, he found a photo copy in colour pink of the said message on the floor and which he delivered to Mr. Allayiotis, the archivist of the confidential archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Indicative is also theevidence of Mr. Selipas which is also accepted by the Commission and who, having searched the waste-paper-basket in the telecommunications service room found the crushed copy of the said message, and which, according to the evidence of Mr. Allayiotis ought to have been kept in a special safebox of the telecommunications service, the key of which was kept always by the accused, even if he was on leave or away from theoffice. Inaddition,from the evidence of Mr. Virides, it appears that he had no authorization whatsoever to photo copy a copy of the said message. Relevant to that is also the admission of the accused to the Commision of the said offence. Even though the defence has alleged that the document referred to in the charge could not have been considered as being of a confidential nature,on the one hand because of its contents, and on the otherhand because it was published in the paper "Fileleftheros", the Commission is of the opinion, that if and whether a document is of a confidential nature or not it is not the task of an officer to decide; because that officer has an obliga­ tion. irrespective of any personal opinion, to treat a 459 HaJiiaoastassioQ J. Michaelldes v. Republic

(1980)document as being confidential once that document is described as such; and (c) during the relevant period which is referred to in the third charge, the accused had co-operated on service matters together with unauthorized persons viz., Rosaki and Pikou of ΚΥΡ, of Greece, and that was admitted to by him to Messrs. Mourouzides and Pelayias who gave evidence before the Commission during the hearing of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the Commission finds the accused guilty on the said three charges. As a result, the Commission has decided, before it proceeds to the imposition of disciplinary punishment, to offer the accused an opportunity to put before it whatever reasons he may have in mitigation of the disciplinary punishment which would be imposed on him, and for that purpose, he would be called to appear before it on the 29th November, 1977, at 11.30 a.m." 5 10 15 On 23rd January, 1978, the Commission having heard the arguments of counsel in mitigation, had this to say in Greek 20 regarding the punishment imposed on the applicant: " Ή 'Επιτροπή Δημοσίας Υπηρεσία? ήκουσε μετάπροσοχής άπαντα τά λεχθέντα Οπό τοΰ Δικηγόρου κ. Λ. Κληρίδη, έκ μέρους τοΰ κατηγορουμένου (Μιχαήλ Α. Μιχαηλίδη). Ή 'Επιτροπή είναι της γνώμης ότι δημόσιος υπάλληλος 25 καΐ δή κατέχων τήυ θέσιυ Κρυπτογράφου πρέπει υά εΐυαι έμπιστος καΐ υά εΐυαι άκρως εχέμυθος. Ή ελλειψις τοιούτων προσόντων αναμφιβόλωςπροκαλεί ανεπανόρθωτους δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις κα! κλονίζει τήν έμπιστοσύυην τοΰ κοινοΰ. "Εχουσα υπ' όψιν τά ανωτέρω, ή 'Επιτροπή θεωρεί τά 30 υπό τοΰ κατηγορουμένου διαπραχθέυτααδικήματα ώς λίαυ σοβαρά καΐ άπεφάσισεν ομοφώνως όπως δι' άπαντα τά έν λόγω αδικήματαέπιβάλη είς τόν κατηγορούμενον τήν πειβαρχικήν ποινήν της αναγκαστικής άφυπηρετήσεως έκ τής δημοσίας υπηρεσίας άπό τής 1ης Φεβρουαρίου, 1978. 35 Ωσαύτως δυνάμει τοΰ άρθρου 84

(3)τοΰ περί Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας Νόμου,Άρ. 33/67, ή 'Επιτροπήάπεφάσισεν όπως 460 3 C.L.R. MlchaeJldesv.Republic Hadjiflnastflsstoo J. έπιστραφή ε!ς αύτόυ τό συνόλου των κατακρατηθεισωυ απολαβών του διαρκούσης της περιόδου τής διαθεσιμότητας του". An in English it reads: 5 10 "The Commission has listened carefully to all which has been said by Mr. L. Cleiides, the lawyer on behalf of the accused (Michael A. MichaeUdes). The Commission is of the opinion that a public servant and particularly one who holds the position of ciphering officer, must be trustworthy and also very reticent. The lack of such qualifications no doubt causes irreparable adverse consequences on the Government's actions and activities in general and shakes the confidence of the public. 15 With that in mind the Commission-considers the acts committed by the accused as very serious and has unani­ mously decided to impose on the accused the disciplinary punishment of compulsory retirement from the public service as from 1st February, 1978,forjill the said charges. 20 Inaddition,in accordancewith theprovisions of s. 84

(3)of the Public Service Law, (No. 33/67), the Commission has decided to return to him the whole of the amount representing his emoluments withheld during the period of his interdiction." 25 I find it convenient to state that 1am in agreement with the Commission that it is not for any public officer, who has been entrusted with documents of a confidential nature to decide whether or not such documents are of a confidential nature, once the documents are described as confidential. Unfortuna30 tely, however, the Commission did notproceed to deal with the second leg of the argument of counsel who clearly pointed out that irrespective of that, and oncethedocumentin question was photographed by the applicant but it was never communicated or used outside the service, then no disciphnary charge could 35 be made or established against the applicant on that offence. Regretfully, however, the Commission, after a long andpro­ tracted trial found the applicant guilty of violating the secrecy of the service regarding official information but without dealing 461 Hadjianastassiou J . Michaelides >. Republic

(1980)with the whole submission of counsel. The Commission, apparently, was wrongly satisfied from the evidence before it that the applicant in photographing the said confidential document was intending to communicate it to the foreign agents of another country and found him guilty without enquiring as 5 to whether there was actual communication to those persons. Indeed, one can go further and state that even if there was a leakageto thepublic officers whogave evidencebefore it,again the Commission wrongly cameto the conclusion that an offence had been committed because our Law says that there must be 10 communication to the foreign agents outside the service. There is no doubt that our Law demands that every public officer who has been entrusted with official confidential information is under a duty not to communicate to any person, outside the service, such information received by him in the 15 course of his service. Section 65 of the Public Service Law, 1967 (No. 33/67) says: "

(1)All information written or oral which has come to the knowledge of a public officer in the course of the performance of his duties shall be confidential and shall 20 not becommunicated toanyperson exceptfor theproper performance of official duty or on the express direction of the appropriate authority concerned.

(2)When a public officer is served with a summons to give evidence on a matter relating to the performance of his 25 duties or to produce an official document in his custody he shall refer the matter to the appropriate authority concerned for determination whether the giving of such evidence or the production of such document would be contrary to the public interest; and such appropriate 30 authority shall, after consulting the Attorney-General of the Republic, determine the matter accordingly." Then I turn to the Disciplinary Code regarding disciplinary proceedings and section 73 says that: "

(1)A public officer is liable to disciplinary proceedings if— 05 (

1. a)hecommitsan offence ofdishonesty orinvolvingmoral turpitude; 462 3 C.L.R. Michaelides v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. . (
2. b)he commits an act or omission amounting to a contravention of any of the duties or obligations of a public officer; and 5 10

(2)For the purposes of this section 'duties or obligations of a public officer' includes any duty or obligation imposed on a public officer under the law of the Republic or under this Law or any other law in force for the time being or under any public instrument made thereunder or under any order or direction issued." It is interesting to note that the Official Secrets Act 1911, section

(1)says: "If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State— (

1. a)(
2. b)15 20 ;or (
3. c)obtains, (collects, records, or publishes,) or communicates to any other person (any secret official code word, or pass word,
4. or)any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or-is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; he shall be guilty of felony..." For the reasons I have given, I have reached the conclusion that the Commission has erred in law and in fact, and as I find myself in agreement with the contentions of counsel for the applicant, that in this particular case there was no communica25 tion or leakage of the said official document outside the service, the applicant, I repeat, was wrongly found guilty of section 65 of Law 33/67, once no communication was made to anyone, and particularly with the foreign agents referred to by the Commission. If authority is needed, I think the case of Rex v. 30 M.

(1915)32 T.L.R. 1, C C A . provides the answer to the present.case. Mr. Justice Darhng, delivering the judgment of the Court, had this to say regarding misdirection: "The last ground was that there was misdirection by the learned Lord Chief Justice when he told the jury that it 463 HadjJanastassioa J. MJchaelides τ.Republic

(1980)was immaterial whether the information communicated by the appellant was true or false. The Court thought that the direction was correct. As the Attorney-General expressed it at the trial, the appellant, when he had chosen to give information, took the risk whether it was true or 5 untrue, useful to the enemy, or otherwise. To hold differ­ ently would be to impose on the prosecution an impossible task. To prove that the information assisted the enemy it would be necessary first to ascertain what information the enemy possessed before receipt of it." 10 Having stated what are the ingredients of our law and because I have been invited by both counsel not to deal with the other two offences, because in their view, the most serious one was the one from which the applicant was acquitted, I have decided to acceed to their request, which is line with a statement made 15 by Professor Kyriakopoulos on the "Law of Civil Servants" 1954 Edn., on the nature of disciplinary offences, at p. 289: " 'Οσάκις μη συντρεχούσης παραλλήλου προσφυγής, προσ­ βάλλεται πειθαρχική τις άπόφασις δι* αΙτήσεως ακυρώσεως, ή τοιαύτη προσβολή προκαλεί καΐ τόν ελεγχον της νομιμό- 20 τητος ολοκλήρου της πειθαρχικής διαδικασίας καΐ των έν αύτη έμπιπτουσοδν πράξεων

1. Τό Σ.τ.Ε. έν τη ακυ­ ρωτική αύτοϋδικαιοδοσία, δένελέγχει τήν κρίσιν τοΰ πειθαρχικοϋ δικαστού περί της βαρυτητος τοΰ παραπτώματος καΐ της έπιβλητέας ποινής, διότι ταΰτα άπόκεινται είς τήν έλευ- 25 2 θέραν έκτίμησιν τοΰ δικάσαντος οργάνου . Έλέγχον όμως άπό απόψεως νομιμότητος τήν έλευθέραν έκτίμησιν τοΰ πειθαρχικούδικαστού, δικαιούταινά έρευνήση μή ούτος _περιέπεσεν εϊςπλάνηνπερί τά πράγματα. Έντη περιπτώσει ταύτη τό Σ.τ.Ε. αποβλέπει είς τά πραγματικάπεριστατικά 30 επί τ φ τέλει όπως έΕακριβώση αν ορθώς έφηρμόσθη ό νόμος καΐ δέν έπλανήθη τό δίκασαν όργανον δεχθέν ώς γεγονότα περιστατικά, τά όποια αποδεδειγμένως δέν υφίστανται έν τοΐς πράγμασι 3 , καΐ ουχί ϊνα άποφανθη έπ' αύτων ώς δικαστήριον ουσίας 35
2. Σ.Ε. 710/1933, 102/1934κ.δ.
3. Σ.Ε. 28,204,329/1930,186, 630/1932, 2, 186,266,903/1933, 118/1934 κ.δ.
4. Σ.Ε. 453, 538, 562, 790, 888/1933, 1001/1934κ.Λ.π. 464 3C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Michaelldesv.Republic Hadjlanastasslou J. Κατ*άκολουθίαντωνανωτέρωεκτεθέντων,δέοννάδεχθωμεν, ότι πειθαρχική άπόφασις, δι' ήςκολάζονται δι*ενιαίας ποινής πλείονα πειθαρχικά αδικήματα τοΰ υπαλλήλου, καθίσταται άκυρωτέα έάν, έστω καΐ έν τούτων, δέν συνιστςί κατά νόμον πειθαρχικόν αδίκημα* διότι άδηλονκαθίσταται αν τό πειθαρχικόν όργανον θά επέβαλε τήν αυτήν ποινήν μόνον δ·ά τάς λοιπάς πράξεις, αϊ άποϊαι συνιστώσιν όντως πειθαρχικά αδικήματα1". And in english it leads: "Whenever a parallel recourse not being available, a disciplinary decision is attacked by recourse for annulment, such recourse brings about the examination of the legality of the entire administrative procedure as well as the acts falling within it. The Council of State in its annulling jurisdiction, does not check thejudgment of the disciplinary Judge in relation to the gravity of the offence, and the ' punishment to be imposed, because these matters fall within the free evaluation of the trial organ. But checking from the point of legality, the free evaluation of the disciplinary Judge, it is entitled to investigate whether he misconceived the facts. In such a case the Council of State looks to the real facts in order to ascertain if the law has been applied correctly, and the trial organ has not been wrong in accepting as facts matters which have been proved not really to exist, and not so as to adjudicate upon them as a Court of substance In view of the above, we must accept that a disciplinary decision by which several disciplinary offences· of the officer arepunishedby a singlesentence, is rendered voidable if, even one of them does not constitute a disciplinary offence according to the law; because it becomes uncertain whether the disciplinary organ would have imposed the same sentence solely for the other acts which really consti­ tute disciplinary offences." For all these reasons, and indeed because of the excellent work done by both counsel in arguing their case, I feel I should not complete thisjudgment without expressing my indebtedness to both counsel.
5. Σ.Ε. 368, 519/1932, 852/1933, 414, 775, 1158/1934 κ.<
6. 465 Hadjianastassioa J. Michaelides v. Republic

(1980)In the light of the authorities I havereachedthe conclusion that thedecision oftheCommissioniscontrary totheprovisions of our Lawandwasmadeinexcessorinabuse ofpowersvested in the Commission. Decision annulled but in the particular circumstances of this 5 case I am not making an order for costs. Sub judice decisionannulled. No order as tocosts. 466