(1984)1984 February 27 [TRIANTAFYLUDES, P., L. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, DEMETRIADES, STYLIANIDES, JJ.] KYRrACOS BAGDADES, Appellant,
- SPYKOS PLOUSSIOU,
- THE CENTRAL BANK OF CYPRUS, Respondents (Revisionai Jurisdiction Appeal No. 315). Practice—Appeal—Recourse for annulment—"Interested party'" who has taken part on his own in the proceedings at the trial—Is entitled to file an appeal against a judgment in the recourse. Legitimate interest—Article 146.2 of the Constitution—Annulment of appointment upon a recourse—Appeal by interested party 5 —Whopending the hearing of the appeal was re-appointed retrospectively to his earlier office and has, thus, suffered no detriment —Recourse by original applicant against the new appointment which was pending at time of hearing of appeal—Positionhas not crystallized in such a manner that the interested party is 10 no longer rested with a legitimate interest entitling him fo pursue his appeal. Upon a recourse by respondent 1 the trial Judge annulled the appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Manager in the service of respondent
- The appellant, who during the hearing of the recourse took part in the proceedings on his own, as an interested party challenged the annulment of his appointment by means of an appeal. After the delivery of the judgment of the trial Judge, namely on the 24th October 1983, the appellant was informed that he was appointed retrospectively, as from the 6th August 1981, to the post to which his earlier appointment, which was also as from the 6th August 1981, had been annulled by the said judgment; in view of his 15*6 15 20 3 C.L.R. Bagdades v. PIOUSSNMI re-appointment he has not suffered any detriment as regards salary or other service benefits because of the annulment of his earlier appointment. 5 Respondent 1in the appeal filed a recourse against the new appointment which was still pending. On thepreliminary objections raisedby respondent 1: 10 (a) That the appellant was not entitled to appeal because he was an "interested party" only in the proceedings before the trial Judge and not one of the parties to the recourse; (b) Thattheappellant hadnolongeranylegitimateinterest entitlinghimto pursuethe appeal any further because, in view of his re-appointment retrospectively, he has not suffered any detriment. 15 20 25 Held,
(1)that an "interested party" is entitled to file an appeal if he has taken part on his own in the proceedings at the trial.
(2)That since respondent has filed a recourse (No. 562/83) against the new appointment of the appellant and it is still pending; and that since as a result of it, unless it is eventually withdrawn, the new retrospective appointment of the appellant will beeither confirmed or annulled and, possibly, after the first instance decision in this connection an appeal may be filed, it cannot be said that bynow theposition has crystallized in such a mannerandtheappellant isno longer vestedwitha legitimate interest entitling him to pursue his present appeal; and that, accordingly, this appeal will be adjourned sine die pending the final decision in the above recourse. Order accordingly. 30 Cases referred to: Theodorides v. Ploussiou
(1976)3 C.L.R. 319 at pp. 330,331; Republic v. Nissiotou (Revisionai Jurisdiction Appeal No. 336, not reported yet); Republic v. Vassiliades
(1976)3 C.L.R. 82at p. 88; 35 Lyssidtou v. Papasavva and Another
(1968)3 CX.R. 173; 1557 Bagdades v. Ploussiou
(1984)RepublicandAnotherv. Artstotelous
(1982)3 CX.R.497; Christodoulou v. KoualiandAnother (197!) 3 CL.R.
- Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment ofa Judge ofthe Supreme Court of Cyprus (Pikis, J.) given on the 15th April, 1983(Revisional 5 Jurisdiction Case No. 425/81)* whereby appellant's promotion to the post of Assistant Manager intheCentral Bank of Cyprus was annulled. Appellant appeared in person. L.N. derides, for respondent
- 10 No appearance- for respondent
- Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment of the Court. At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal there was raised by counsel for respondent 1, who was the 15 applicant in recourse No. 425/81, the preliminary objection that the appellant is not entitled to appeal because he was an "interested party" only in the proceedings before the trial Judge and not oneof the parties to therecourse. It was,also, stressed by counsel foj respondent 1that respondent 2, which 20 wa*therespondent totherecoursehasnotfiledan appeal against the judgment of the trial Judge by means of which Ihere was annulled theappointment of theappellant tothepost of Assistant Manager in the service of respondent
- The position in Cyprus as regards the right to appeal of an 25 "interested party" in proceedings under Article 146 of the Constitution has been expounded in Theodoridesv. Ploussiou,
(1976)3 CL.R. 319,330,331and, even more recently, inThe Republic v. Nissiotou (Ruling in Revirional Jurisdiction Appeal 336, not leported yet). It is a position which is somewhat 30 sui generis, analogous to, but not exactly the same as, that in Greece, because in determining what aretherights of an "interested party" in Cyprus as regards appealing against a first instance judgment in a recourse under Article 146 there has to be borne in mind the nature of thetwo-tier litigation which 35 is envisaged by section 11
(2)of the Administration of Justice Reported as Ploussiou v. Central Bank of Cyprus in
(1983)3 C.L.R.398. 1558 3 CL.R, Bagdades v. Ploussiou Triantafyllides P. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964 (Law 33/64), as such nature has been explained in, inter alia, The Republicv. Vassiliades,
(1967)3 CL.R. 82, 88. In the present instance the appellant is an "interested party" 5 who was allowed to take, and did take, part on his own at the hearing of the recourse before the trial Judge. The situation, therefore, in this case seems to be the same as that in Lyssiotou v. Papasawa and The Republic,
(1968)3 CL.R. 173,where an "interested party" who had taken part, 10 through counsel, at ihe trial, appealed, even though the respondent organ of the Republic did not appeal too, and the appeal of the said "interested party" was heard and determined by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court. Of course, in the Lyssiotou case, supra, it does not appear that there was raised 15 the preliminary objection which was raised today before us, but such objection is not, in our opinion, sustainable because from what was said in this respect in the Theodoridescase, supra, it can be derived that an "interested party" is entitled to file an appeal if he has taken part on his own in the proceed20 ings at the trial (and see, also, The Republicand Haviara v. Aristotelous,
(1982)3 CL.R. 497). It is useful to mention, too, that in Christodoulou v.Kouali and the Republic,
(1971)3 CL.R. 207, "interested parties" appealed even though they had not taken part on their own 25 at the trial; but in that case no objection was raised as regards their right to appeal and, in any event, we are not concerned in this instance with such a situation because in the present casethe appellant hastaken part on hisown, asinthe Lyssiotou case, supra, in the proceedings before the trial Judge. 30 For all the foregoing reasons we find that this appeal could be filed by the appellant. We shall deal, next, with another submission of counsel for respondent 1which is based on developments in this case which have supervened after the delivery of the judgment of the trial 35 Judge, namely that on the 24th October 1983 the appellant was informed that he was appointed retrospectively, as from the 6th August 1981,to the post to which his earlier appointment, which was also as from the 6th August 1981,had been annulled by the said judgment. 1559 TriantafjHides P. Bagdades Y. Ploussion
(1984)The appellant has stated before us today that in view of his re-appointment he has not suffered any detriment as regards salary or other seivice benefits because of the annulment of his earlier appointment. Counsel for respondent 1has submitted that, in the circum- 5 stances, the appellant has no longer any legitimate interest entitling him to pursue this appeal further. Astherightofaninterestedpartytotakepart infirstinstance proceedings in a recourse, or to appeal, or to take part in an appeal, can, as it appears from the Theodorides case, supra, 10 beregulated bytheCourt,intheinterestsofjustice,byexercising its powers under rule 19of the Supreme Constitutional Court Rules of Court, we would not have allowed the appellant to pursue any further this appeal if there had elapsed, without any other development in the meantime, a period of seventy- 15 five days(seeArticle 146.3 of the Constitution) since theretrospective new appointment of the appellant, because then, indeed, he would possess no legitimate interest at all entitling him to proceed further with this appeal. During, however, the said period of seventy-five days res- 20 pondent 1 inthisappealhasfiled arecourse(No.562/83)against the new appointment of the appellant and it is still pending; and as a result of it, unlessit iseventually withdrawn, the new retrospective appointment of the appellant will beeither confirmed orannulled;and,possibly,afterthefirstinstancedecision 25 in this connection an appeal may befiled. So,itcannot besaidthat bynowthepositionhascrystallized in such a manner that the appellant is no longer vested with a legitimate interest entitling him to pursuehispresent appeal. In the light of all the foregoing we think that the proper 30 course, in the circumstances, is to adjourn sinedie this appeal on condition that if the aforesaid recourse No. 562/83is either withdrawn, or is dismissed and its dismissal is either not challenged by appeal or is confirmed on appeal, then this present "> appeal will be dismissed accordingly, with no order as to its 35 costs. If, however, respondent 1 to this appeal succeeds in his recourse No. 562/83 to annul the new appointment of the appellant,eitherinwholeorinpart,and,particularly,asregards i#P 3 C.L.R. Bagdades v. Ploussiou Triantafyltides P. its retrispectivity, and such annulment is challenged by appeal and isconfirmed on appeal, then the appellant will be at liberty, within three months from the final decision in that recourse, either in the first instance or on appeal, to apply, in writing, 5 to the Registry of this Court, that this appeal should be fixed once again for hearing. Order accordingly. 1561