← Κύπρος

clr/1983/1983_3_1028.pdf

(1983)1983 September 19 [HADJIANASTASSIOW, J.] IN THEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ANDREAS IERIDES AND ANOTHER, Applicants. v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH . THE MINISTER OFINTERIOR, Respondent. (Case Nos. 126/80 and 127/80). Police Force—Promotions—Recommendations by Chief of Police —Not opento himto useinformation emanatingfrom theCentral InformationService(ΚΥΡ) as anaidto thedischarge of his duties —Therefore processof promotion vitiated by irrelevant material havingbeen takenintoconsideration—Approvalof therecommend- 5 ationby Ministerof Interior, whodidnot excludefrom consider­ ation the material taken into accountby the Chief of Police, equally vulnerable—Sub judice promotionsannulled. Administrative Law—Administrativedecision—Annulled because it was reached through takinginto account irrelevant material. \Q The applicants and the interested parties were candidates for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Police Force. They all held the post of Sub-Inspector. A Committee was set uptoevaluatethesuitability of the candidates for promotion and report upon them with a view of assisiing theCommander 15 of the Police tomake a selection andultimately topavethe way for the Minister of Interior topromote themost suitable candi­ dates. By the recommendations of the Committee the interested parties werestrongly recommendedforpromotionand applicants 20 were only recommended. The Chief of the Police reviewed the recommendalions of 1028 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Ierides and Another v. Republic the Committee but apparently he also examined the suitability of the various candidates for promotion. Hedidnot however rest with that and sought information from the Central Intel­ ligence Service of the Police (ΚΥΡ) andostensibly acted on the provisions of regulation 2
(2)which makes thedevotion to duty and subservience to thelaw oneof the considerations relevant to the worth of a member of the Police Force. Finally the Minister of Interior approved the recommendations ofthe Chief of thePolice, by means of which theinterested parties were recommended for promotion, by writing thereon the word "approved" and hence these recourses. Held, that elicitation of the quality of Police Officers may be discerned from his service record especially for devotion to duties and thepresence of any ofadisciplinary orother convictions;that itcannever depend onthe opinionofanothermember of the Police Force, or a member of ΚΥΡand thedossier may be supplied from information often secretly connectedinmaking the promotion of members of the Police Force dependenton reports of the Intelligence Agency which would underminein the longer run, not only discipline in the Police Force but devotion toduties as well as objectively identifiable from police records;thatitwas not,therefore, opentotheChief ofthePolice to usesuch information asanaidtothedischarge of this task; that what were those recommendationsitis not known, a factor that makes judicial review impossible, noris it known whatthe impact of those recommendationswas upon thedecision ofthe Chief ofthePolice;that,consequently, the process ofpromotion was vitiated by irrelevant material being taken into consider­ ation; that theMinister acted upon the recommendationofthe Chief of the Police and judging from his laconical note, "approved", hedoes not appear tohave carried outaninquiry on his own,norwas he bound to carry out such an inquiry; that since the Minisler didnot exclude from considerationthe relevant material taken into account by the Chief of Police his decision is equally vulnerable to be set aside as that of the Chief of the Police andfor precisely thesame reason; accord­ ingly the sub judice promotions must be annulled. Subjudice promotions annulled. Cases referred to: Partellidesv. Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 480; Nicolaides v. Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 585; 1029 Ierides and Another v. Republic
(1983)MetconConstruction andOthers v.Republic
(1968)3C.L.R.537; Charalambous and Others v. Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 224; Haviaras v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R.
  1. Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondent to promote 5 the interested parties to thepost of Chief Inspector in the Police Force in preference and instead of the applicants.
  2. Erotokritou (Mrs.), for the applicants.
  3. Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. HADJIANASTASSIOH J. read the following judgment. In these two cases which have been heard together thetwopolice officers Andreas Ierides and Andreas Minas seek a declaration that the act and/or decision of therespondents to promote thefollowing 15 officers—G. Kasapi, A. Seymeni, S. Zavros, N. Solomonides, A. Christofides, M. Kazafanioti, A. Kokkinos, M. Pahiti,A.S. Demetriades, P. Fryda and A. Stefanou, to thepost of Chief Inspector as from 1st March, 1980, and which decision was published intheweekly orderspart IIdated 10thMarch, 1980,is 20 null and void. The facts: The present application is based on thefollowing facts:-The applicant Andreas Ieridesjoined thePoliceForce on 15th March, 1950 when he graduated the secondary school of Evrychou. 25 On 20th September, 1960, the applicant has been promoted to Sergeant having served earlier as an Assistant Sergeant as from 12.7.1956, and he came first in the examinations from all thecandidates for thepost of Sergeant of theareas Limassol and Paphos. Furthermore, the applicant has been promoted 30 to an acting Sub-Inspector having passed the relevant examinations for the year 1965for promotion to Sub-Inspector. On the 1st April, 1971,once again the applicant was promoted to Sub-Inspector. On 17thMarch, 1957,theapplicant was arrested bytheBritish 35 Troops because he fought in the EOKA struggle against the British andremained inprison atPylaandTrimithiafora period of 2 years. In addition, the applicant has served in various 1030 10 3 C.L.R. Ierides and Another v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. posts from 1950tilltheyear
  4. On 16.8.1960hewasposted in Nicosia to the traffic department and various other posts andhas served invariousposts duringcertainperiods beginning from
  5. In addition, theapplicant has succeeded in passing 5 a series ofjessons which appear at pp. 2&3of the application. Finally, the applicant was promoted to sub-inspector. It appears further that the interested parties A. Seimenis, A. Kokkinos, M. Pahitis, P. Frydas and A. Stephanou who were promoted on 15th November, 1969 by exception were 10 promoted to the post of Sergeant but they have not passed the examinations for promotion to a Sergeant and also have failed to pass examinations for promotion to the post ofSubInspector. Thefacts for the second applicant: 15 The second applicant has graduated the Commercian School of Samuel and joined the police force on 21.9.
  6. He was promoted on 15.11.1969 to a Sergeant having served as Acting Sergeantfrom theyear 1965to
  7. On 1.9.1972theapplicant was promoted to Sub-Inspector and in the year 1974 became 20 an Inspector because the post of Sub-Inspector and that of Inspector became one post. In the year 1967, after attending a competition, he was declared to be the first policeman of the year. In addition, the ap cant has attended a series of lessons and he was 25 successful in his examinations. Furthermore, he served in variousposts from theyear 1960-1962and from the year 19621964 to the post of Lykavitos and to other posts as it appears at p. 2 of the facts. There is no doubt that during this period thesecond applicant hasdonehis verybest toservehiscountry. 30 On the contrary, the interested parties have been promoted on the 1st May, 1977from the post of Sergeant to the post of Sub-Inspector on 1.3.1980 and were further promoted to the post of Inspector and according to the applicant his seniority has been ignored entirely by his superiors. 35 There is no doubt as it appears from the facts in the present case, that the interested parties A. Seimenis, A. Kokkinos, M. Pahitis, P. Frydas and A. Stephanou who by exception were promoted to the post of Sergeant on 15th November, 1969, 1031 Hadjianastassiou J. Ierides and Another v. Republic
(1983)have not passed the examinations for promotion to a Sergeant and the examinations for promotion to a Sub-Inspector. Both applicants claimed that the merits, qualifications and capabilities of the interested parties are clearly lower than those of the applicants. 5 Legal Points: The present applications are based on the following legal points:
(1)The applicants have failed to exercise their paramount dutiesinselectingthebestcandidatesandhaveactedinviolation 10 of the well-accepted principles of administrative law as have been expounded by the Supreme Court of Cyprus in the case of Michael Theodossiou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. at p. 44 and have acted in abuse of powers.
(2)The respondents ignored the seniority of the applicants 15 without putting forward a reason and have acted in violation of the well-established principles of administrative law as has beenexpounded by theSupremeCourt inthecase ofPartellides v. The Republic,
(1969)3 C.L.R. at p. 480 and/or have acted in abuse of their powers. 20
(3)The respondents have ignored the more superior qualifications and their merit inviolation of the law and/or in abuse of their powers.
(4)The respondents have attached more weight to the views of the Chief of Police which views in any event were based on 25 theviewsand opinions oftheCommittee of Selection andwhich appears in the Weekly Orders of 12th March, 1979, and which committee had no immediate and personal knowledge of the merit and qualifications of the candidates and/or the said committee has been influenced in an irregular and illegal way by 30 the police inspector and/or he imposed his own views.
(5)In the light of what was said, the decision attacked is not duly reasoned and/or its reasoning is wrong and contrary to the law and
(6)In violation of the well-accepted principles of admi- 35 nistrative law which have been accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of NicosNicolaides v. TheRepublic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 1032 3 C.L.R. Ierides and Another v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. at p. 585,the respondents have not investigated the basic facts and have decided contrary to the law.
(7)Contrary to the well-accepted principles of administrative law expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Metcon 5 Construction andOthers v. TheRepublic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. at p. 537, the respondents have not kept the minutes of the case which led to thefinaldecision to promote the interested parties to the post of Sub-Inspector.
(8)The respondents have on this subject decided illegally 10 and failed to exercise their discretionary powers legally and regularly.
(9)Thedecision attacked was taken contrary to the principles of the Police (Promotions) Regulations and/or the Weekly Orders dated 10.11.1969 and 12.3.
  1. 15 On 24th October, 1980, counsel for the respondent opposed the applications of the applicants and his opposition was based on the following legal points:- The act attacked and/or decision is duly reasoned and was taken correctly and legally in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws and/or 20 regulations, after a proper examination and/or the discretionary powers of the respondent and have been duly taken into consideration after a proper examination as well as the basic facts and circumstances of this case. The opposition is based on the facts which appear at para25 graph 3 Part A. The personal and professional achievements of the interested parties appear in Schedule A.
  2. The Chief of Police in accordance with his powers under regulation 4 of the Police Promotion (Regulations) proceeded in April, 1979, to the appointment of a committee of selection 30 for taking and evaluating the candidates for promotion to the post of Sergeant, Sub-Inspector and Inspector and Inspector B.
  3. Theapplicant wasone of the candidates which wererecommended by the Police Director for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and later on he appeared before theCommittee. 35 Itappearsfurther that theapplicant was"sinistomenos"(recommended).
  4. TheCommittee of Selection havingtaken into consideration 1033 HadjianastassJon J. Ierides and Another v. Republic
(1983)the assessment of the applicant which was made by the Committee, recommended him, as it appears from the administrative order No. AR 11/79, dated 12.3.1979, and placed him 97th on the list in line ofpriority. Photo copy of the said order is attached as schedule *T". 5 7. The result of the recommendation of the Selective Committee, which isof a consultative nature, wasplaced before the Chief of Police, who has taken that into consideration and acted in accordance with regulation 13
(2)of the Police Law, Cap. 285, has selected and recommended to the Minister to 10 approve the promotion of the interested parties instead of the applicants. (Photo copy of the letter of the Chief of Police to the Minister of the Interior is hereby attached as Schedule "D". The latter has not been recommended for promotion the reason beingthat hewasplaced ina lower linebythe Com- 15 mittee. The seniority in accordance with regulation 2
(2)of the Police (Promotion) Regulations would be taken into consideration but it would not beleft to regulatethepromotion.
  1. TheMinister of Interior hasapproved thepromotionsdated 1.3.1980 by his letter under file No. 169/60/
  2. (Photo copy 20 is attached to ScheduleE). TheMinister intakinghisdecision hastaken intoconsiderationtheopinion oftheDeputy Attorney -General of the Republic, Mr. Loucaides (Photo copy of which is attached and is made schedule St) with regard to hislaw abiding devotion to his duties and personal reputation. 25
  3. InaccordancewiththeexistingPoliceOrdersthepromotions are published in the Police Orders Part II No. 10/80 dated
  4. 3.1980 Schedule
  5. The personal and professional achievements of the interested parties, viz., G. Kasapis, A. Seimenis, St. Zavros, N. Solomo- 30 nides, A. Christofides, N. Kazafaniotis, A. Kokkinos and M. Pahitis appear inPart AandIneednot quotethem onceinthis schedule appear everything which one needs for the purposes of this case. Turning now to Andreas Minas, I think I ought to reiterate 35 once again that his case is taken together with that of Andreas Ieridesand Idonotthink itisnecessarytoputforward the facts of his casewhichappear at pp. 2&3of CaseNo. 127/
  6. On 1034 3 C.L.R. Ierides and Another v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. the contrary, counsel for the Republic Mr. S. Georghiades, opposed the application and was based on the following point of law, that the act attacked was legally made and in the light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 5 The present opposition was based on the following facts :Theapplicant has been enlisted inthePolice Forceon21.9.1960 and was promoted to an Acting Sergeant on 20.11.1965, and on 15.11.1969to a Sergeant. He was further promoted to SubInspector on 1.9.1972 and Inspector on 4.7.
  7. He served 10 in the various stations and as .from 6.8.1979 has served in the traffic department of the Nicosia Police. The personal and professional achievements appear in Schedule A.
  8. The Chief of Police in accordance with his powers given tohimunder regulation 4 of thePolicePromotion(Regulations) 15 in April, 1979, appointed a council of selection for the better assessment of the candidates for promotion to the post of Ser­ geant, Sub-Inspector, Inspector and Chief Inspector.
  9. Theapplicant Andreas Minas was one of therecommended candidates by thepolice Directorfor his promotiontoInspector 20 and was called before the Police Committee.
  10. TheCommitteeof Selection having taken intoconsideration what has been said about the applicant by the committee on 12.3.197°, placed him No. 108 in line of priority.
  11. The results of the Committee for selection which is of a 25 consultative nature were placed before the Chief of Police who has taken intoconsiderationeverything and has acted inaccord­ ance with regulation 13
(2)of the PoliceLaw, Cap. 25, selected and recommended to the Minister to approve the promotion of the interested parties instead of the applicant. The latter 30 who has been emplaced by the Committee of selection to cate­ gory Β (recommended) it was not found possible to be recom­ mended for promotion because of the limited number ofexisting vacant posts and that was the reason why he was not recom­ mended. The seniority in accordance with regulation 2
(2)of 35 the Pohce Disciphne Regulations would be needed to be taken intoconsideration butis nottobeleft toregulate thepromotion.
  1. The Minister of the Interior has approved the promotions by a letter underfile No. 169/68/16dated 1.3.
  2. 1035 Hadjianastassiou J. Ierides and Another v. Republic
(1983)Turning back to the case 126/80, counsel for the respondent Mr. Florentzos made this statement: "We have discussed the casewith my learned colleague ofthe other sideand inview of certain information which I require with a view to rinding out further matters and which the Chief of Police would be 5 supplying me, I ask with the leaveof the Court for an adjournment once no reply has been given to my letter addressed to the Chief of Police from our office 20 days ago". Indeed, counsel for theapplicant agreed withthe adjournment sought and the case was fixed for further directions on the 10 9th February,
  1. On 9th February, 1981, Mr. Florentzos filed the opposition and the case was fixed for hearing on
  2. 6.1981, but on that date regretfully counsel appearing for Mr. Florentzos informed the Court that he has been admitted into the hospital with a view of having an operation and inevitably 15 the case has to be adjourned on the 2nd December, 1981,but for other reasons again the case was adjourned and was fixed for hearing on 10.4.
  3. On that date counsel for both applicants having addressed the Court, the case had to be adjourned because Mr. Florentzos requested an adjournment 20 to enable him to go abroad and to return on the 22.6.
  4. Inthelightofthat statement thecasewasadjourned to26.6.1982 for further hearing. On 2nd October, 1982,a statement on oath was made by the Chief of Police who had this to say:- 25 "I, the undersigned Sawas Antoniou of Nicosia, swear and state the following:
  5. I am the Commander of the Police Force of Cyprus, I have personal knowledge of the facts of the present case and have the authority to make the present affidavit. 30
  6. Both applicants were placed by their Divisional Police Commander, as well as the Selection Board at very low places (Ierides 97th and Mina 108th out of 202candidates) and in the 2nd category, that is "recommended". For this reason they werenot included inmyrecommendations, 35 which, as it is shown from the promotions that took place, were confined to the candidates who were placed in the 1st category (strongly recommended). 1036 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Ierides and Another v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J.
  7. The views of the Selection Board are as regards the Commander of Police, of an advisory and not of a binding character. The Commander of Police may, according to his opinion and after giving sufficient reasoning, select for promotion any candidate irrespective of the position inwhich theBoard hasplaced him. Nonethelessthe candi­ dates did not show any special distinction, offer of services oractofvaliance sothattheirselectionfor promotionwould bejustified vis a vis othercandidates who hadhigher grades. Consequently, in the case of the applicants there was no reason for me to disregard the list and order of priority made by the Board. 15
  8. I reached the present decision for the non-inclusion of the applicants in the list of those eligible for promotion without taking into consideration and without being in­ fluenced by the report of ΚΥΡ which in any case did not concern the applicants. 20
  9. The Selection Board during theevaluation of thecandi­ dates for promotion (including the applicants) did not have in mind nor was it put before it for purposes of eva­ luationareportof ΚΥΡ, butconfined itself topurelymatters of service. 25
  10. Theabove meaning has what is written in my letter to th' Minister of interior (Appendix D to the opposition), dau.a 16.1.1980, file No. E/16/7/11". In the light of the sworn statement of the Chief of Police of 25th September, 1982, counsel for the applicants gavenotice tothe Registrar of the Courtthat she intendedto cross-examine the Chief of Police. Inevitably the case had to be adjourned 30 once again and on the 19th November, 1982, Mr. Flourentzos, counsel for the respondents, called Mr. Sawas Antoniou, the Chief of Police to give evidence. Mr. Antoniou said: " I adopt my sworn statement dated 25th September, 1982". In cross-examination by counsel for the applicants, Mrs. Eroto35 kritou, he said that he had in mind the sworn statement which he had made on the 25th September, 1982 and the letter which hehadaddressed to the Minister of Interiordated 16thJanuary, 1980, with regard to the recommendations for promotion of the interested parties and which letter has been recorded as. 1037 Hadjianastassiou J . Ierides and Another v. Republic
(1983)Appendix D in the opposition. (See the letter dated 16th January, 1980, Appendix D in the opposition). Questioned further he said that he had asked from ΚΥΡ information for all those who were strongly recommended and he added that he referred to that letter and having considered the cases of 5 all the candidates he decided to limit the promotions to those who were strongly recommended only excluding the two applicants. Questioned further as to whether among thecandi­ dates were the applicants his reply was yes. He was further asked whether the Chief of Police had in mind information 10 from ΚΥΡ as regards the applicants and his reply was in the negative. Questioned further regarding the cases of those strongly recommended his reply was that he had asked ΚΥΡ to supply him with reports. In the light of this statement counsel for the applicants invited the witness to look at para- 15 graph 4 of his sworn statement dated 25th September, 1982, and he had this to say: "Paragraph 4 to which you refer for not including the applicants in the list of those to be promoted I reached the conclusion without taking into consideration and without being influenced from the reports of ΚΥΡ which were 20 not referring to the applicants because I did not ask any report for the applicants". Pressed further as to paragraph 4 of his sworn statement which contradicts the paragraph of his letter dated 16th January, 1980, his reply was that it is not contra­ dictory because he talks about applicants here. Finally, the 25 Chief of Police had this to say: "I have asked for a report from ΚΥΡ only for those who I have decided to promote, to see if there were any difficulties, and once I received the report, I studied it and I find that it was justified not to be promoted because of that report and in view of theelements then I would 30 act accordingly. In those reports the applicants were not in­ cluded". Questioned further as to whether in the cases of promotion he asked for the reports of ΚΥΡ only his answer was that ΚΥΡ comes into place in the final stage. The picture that emerges on a review of the totality of the 35 material before the Court is the following: The applicants and the interested parties were candidates for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Police Force. They all held the post of Sub-Inspector. A Committee was set up to evaluate the suitability of the candidates to promotionand report uponthem 40 1038 3 C.L.R. Ierides ami Another v. Republic HadjianastnssiouJ. with a view of assisting the Commander of the Police to make a selection and ultimately to pave tlie way for the Minister of Interior to promote the most suitable candidates. Indeed the power for appointments rests by virtue of rcgulation 13 in the Minister. But he must bear in mind the Police Regulations paying due regard to the recommendations of the Commander of the Police entrusted in the first place by regulation 13
(2)ίο make a proper selection. The applicants. as well as the interested parties were recommended for promotion 10 by the Consultative Board yet the Committee by its recommend­ ation and whereas the interested parlies were strongly recom­ mended the applicants were only recommended. 5 The Commander of the Police reviewed the recommendations of the Committee but apparently he examined the suitability 15 of the various candidates for promotion. He did not however rest wiih that and sought information fro.η the Central Intellig­ ence Service of the Police and ostensibly acted on the provisions of regulation 2
(2). This regulation makes the devotion to duty and subservience to the law one of the considerations relevant 20 to the worth of a member of the Police Force. Elicitation of the quality of a Police Olficcr may be discerned from his service record especially for devotion to duties and the presence of any of a disciplinary or other convictions. It can never depend on the opinion of another member of 25 the Police Force, or a member of ΚΥΡ and the dossier may be supplied from information often secretly connected in making the promotion of members of the Police Force dependent on reports of the Intelligence Agency which would undermine in the longer run, not only discipline in the Police Force but devo30 tion to duties as well as objectively identifiable from police records. In my view, it was not, therefore, open to the Com­ mander of the Police to use such information as an aid to the discharge of this task. What were those recommendations it is not known, a factor that makes judicial review impossible, 35 nor do we know what the impact of those recommendations was upon the decision of the Commander of the Police. Consequently the process of promotion was vitiated by irrelevant material being taken into consideration. The 1039 Hadjianastassiou J. Ierides and Another \. Republic
(1983)Minister acted upon the recommendation of the Commander of the Police and judging from his laconical note, "approved", he does not appear to have carried out an inquiry on his own, nor was he bound to carry out such an inquiry. SeeGeorghios Charalambous and Others v. The Republic,
(1976)3 C.L.R. p. 5 224. Certainly the Minister did not exclude from consideration the relevant material taken into account by the Commander of Police and his decision is equally vulnerable to be set aside as that of the Commander of the Police and for precisely the same reason. (See further the case of Loucas Haviaras v. The 10 Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 159). For the reasons above given the decision must be annulled, but in the particular circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Subjudice decisionannulled. No order as to costs. 1040 ]5

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.