(1982)1982 October 20 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, MALACHTOS AND DEMETRIADES, JJ.] CHARALAMBOS KANTZIAIS, Appellant-Plaintiff, v, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, THROUGH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC, Respondent-Defendant. (Civil Appeal No. 5921). Damages—Wrongfuladministrativeactsoromissions—Damageresulting therefrom—Cannot be pursued except in accordance with Article 146.6 of the Constitution—And after the nullification ofan act or omission by theSupremeCourt—Withholding leave payments to appellant afterhis interdiction—Amounts to admin- 5 istrative act or omission correctness of which canonly betested beforethe SupremeCourtin the exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction—And an actionfor damagesbefore the DistrictCourt accrues thereafter if it is decided thatactoromission a wrongful one. 10 The applicant, a member of the Police Force, was criminally charged, while on leave prior to retirement, whereupon he was interdicted and leave payments were stopped. Following his disciplinary conviction he was dismissed from the service and the PoliceAuthorities refused to makeany payment to him 15 after hisinterdiction. HenceanactioHbyhimbeforetheDistrict Court for the collection of the monies allegedly due to him for thelast 166daysoftheperiod ofhisleavepriortohisretirement. Uponappeal against the dismissalof his action for lack of jurisdiction: Held,that damage or loss resulting from a wrongful administrative act or omission cannot bepursued exceptin accordance with Article 146.6; that the nullification of an act or omission is prerequisite to the sustainment of a civil action for damages flowing from such an act; that the propriety of the withholding 25 606 20 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 Kantziais τ. Ministry of Interior of leave payments to the appellant after his interdiction and generally the refusal to pay him the money in question in the context of the facts of this case amount to administrative acts or omissions, the correctness of which can only be tested before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction; that thereafter, if it is decided they were ill-founded a right for an action for damages may accrue; that, consequently, the proceedings before the District Court were misconceived, and the appeal must fail. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: HolySeeofKitiumandMunicipalCouncilofLimassol, 1 R.S.C.C. 15; Hussein Ramadan of Limassol and The Electricity Authority of Cyprus and Another, 1 R.S.C.C. 49; TheAttorney-Generalof theRepublic v. AndreasA. Markoullides and Another
(1966)1 C.L.R.
- Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against thejudgment of the District Court of Limassol (Artemis, D.J.) dated the 12th December, 1978, (Action No. 20/78) whereby his claim for the payment to h'm of his salary for the last 166 days of the period of his leave prior to retirement was dismissed. V. Vassiliades, for the appellant. A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, with Gl. HjiPetrou, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. ' HADJIANASTASSIOU J. read the following judgment of the Court. Charalambos Kantziais a member of the Police Force 30 submitted, while criminal proceedings were pending against him, his resignation on 18th October, 1976, due to take effect on 9th September,
- His resignation was accepted. In accordance with Police Regulations he was entitled to 310 days leave so he went on leave prior to retirement on 4th November, 35
- On 28th March, 1977, while on leave Kantziais was criminally charged whereupon he was interdicted and leave payments were stopped. The power to interdict is not, prima facie, according to regulation 39 of the Police Regulations limited to policemen in active service. A shortwhile later on 40 9th May, 1977, Kantziais was sent to prison. Finally, on 23rd 607 Hadjianastassiou J. Kantziais v. Ministry of Interior
(1982)August, 1977,he was dismissed from the service in the context of disciplinary proceedings brought against him. The police authorities refused to make any payment to the appellant after his interdiction. The present proceedings were raised before the District Court for the collection of themonies allegedly due 5 for the last 166days of the period of his leave prior to the retirement. The learned trial Judge dismissed the claim on theground he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute. In essence he treated the complaint and matters incidental thereto 10 as measures of an administrative character amenableexclusively to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 146.1. See Holy See of KitiumandMunicipal Council of Limassol, 1 R.S.C.C. 15; see also Hussein Ramadan of Limassol and The Electricity Authority of Cyprus andAnother,1 R.S.C.C. 49. It 15 is well settled that damage or loss resulting from a wrongful administrative act or omission cannot be pursued except in accordance with Article 146.6. See The Attorney-General of the Republic v. AndreasA. Markoullides andAnother
(1966)1 C.L.R. 242. The nullification of an act or omission is pre- 20 requisite tothesustainment ofacivilaction for damages flowing from such an act. In our judgment the propriety of the withholding of leave payments to the appellant after his interdiction and generally the refusal to pay him the money in question in the context of 25 thefacts ofthiscaseamount toadministrativeactsoromissions, the correctness of which can only be tested before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Thereafter, if it is decided they were ill-founded a right for an action for damages may accrue. Consequently, the proceedings before 30 the District Court were misconceived, so the appeal fails. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 608