clr/1985/1985_3_2811.pdf

(1)Επειδή αν η αστυνομία κα­ τάληγε στην διαπίστωση πως για την αλλαγή του ονό­ ματος και της ταυτότητας του αιτητή στους πιό πάνω εκλογικούς καταλόγους ευθύνετο συγκεκριμένο άτομο, τούτο δυνατό να οδηγούσε σε δικαστική δίωξη του α­ τόμου αυτού, η επιστολή του Αρχηγού της Αστυνομί­ ας είναι πράΕη φύσεως προπαρασκευαστικής σχετισ­ μένη με τη δυνατότητα ενάρΕεως δικαστικής διάδικο* An English translation appears at pp. 2815-2818 post. 2811 Pitsillos v. Republic {1986) οίας και γι' αυτό δεν εμπίπτει στα πλαίσια της δικαι­ οδοσίας του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου δυνάμει του 'Αρ­ θρου 146 του Συντάγματος.

(2)Εν πάση περιπτώσει η εν λόγω επιστολή είναι έγγραφο πληροφοριακού χαρακτήρα και γι' αυτό δεν είναι εκτελεστή διοικητική πράΕη. 5 Η προσφυγή απορρίπτεται. Ουδεμία διαταγή για έΕοδα. Αποφάσεις αναφερόμενες στην απόφαση: ϊενοφώντος ν. Δημοκρατίας, 2 Α.Α.Σ.Δ. 89, Χατζηπαναγή ν. Δημοτικής

(1974)3 Α.Α.Δ. 366, Επιτροπής 10 Λευκωσίας Οικονομίδης ν. Δημοκρατίας

(1980)3 Α.Α.Δ. 219, Κυπριανίδης ν. Δημοκρατίας

(1982)3 Α.Α.Δ.

1. Παυλίδης ν. Δημοκρατίας (προσφυγές 131/79, μη δημοσιευθείσες ακόμα). 107/79 και 15 Προσφυγή. Προσφυγή εναντίον του περιεχομένου επιστολής του Αρχηγού της Αστυνομίας ημερομηνίας 19.10.1983 σχετικά με διαμαρτυρία του αιτητή για τη μή ανεύρεση των δήμο- 20 οίων υπαλλήλων που, σύμφωνα με τον ισχυρισμό του αι­ τητή, άλλαΕαν το όνομα του και την ταυτότητα του στους εκλογικούς καταλόγους που ετοιμάστηκαν για την ανα­ πληρωματική εκλογή Προέδρου της Δημοκρατίας το
2. Ο αιτητής ενεφανίσθη αυτοπροσώπως. 25 Μ. Φλουρέντ^ος, Ανώτερος Δικηγόρος της Δημοκρα­ τίας και Α. Βασιλειάδης για τη Δημοκρατία. Cur. adv. vult, ΤΡΙΑΝΤΑΦΥΛΛΙΔΗΣ Πρ. ανέγνωσε την ακόλουθη από­ φαση. Με την παρούσα προσφυγή ο αιτητής παραπονείται 30 για το περιεχόμενο επιστολής του Αρχηγού της Αστυνομί­ ας ημερομηνίας 19 Οκτωβρίου 1983 σχετικά με διαμαρτυ­ ρία του αιτητή για τη μη ανεύρεση των δημοσίων υπαλλή­ λων που, σύμφωνα με ισχυρισμό του αιτητή. άλλαΕαν το όνομα του και την ταυτότητα του στους εκλογικούς κατά- 35 2812 3 C.L.R. Pttsillos v. Republic Triantafyllldas P. λόγους που ετοιμάστηκαν για την αναπληρωματική εκλογή Προέδρου της Δημοκρατίας κατά το
3. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Το παράπονα του ο αιτητής το υπέβαλε στον Αρχηγό της Αστυνομίας με επιστολή του ημερομηνίας 19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1983, κατόπιν υποδείΕεως του Γενικού Εισαγγελέα της Δημοκρατίας που περιέχεται σε επιστολή του ημερομη­ νίας 30 Αυγούστου
4. Στο παράπονο του αιτητή γίνεται αναφορά και σε δια­ γωγή αστυνομικών οργάνων σχετικά με τη διερεύνηση του ισχυρισμού του περί αλλαγής TOU ονόματος και της ταυτό­ τητας του στους εκλογικούς καταλόγους. Με επιστολή ημερομηνίας 19 Οκτωβρίου 1983 ο Αρχηγός της Αστυνομίας πληροφόρησε τον αιτητή ότι δεν προέκυ­ ψε υαρτυρια εναντίον οποιουδήποτε μέλους της αστυνομικής δυνάμεως για αμέλεια καθήκοντος. Στην επιστολή αυτή υπάρχει μια ανακρίβεια, χωρίς όμως ουσιαστική οτ\\ιαο\α, γιατί αναφέρεται ότι η αγωγή 2184/ 82 του αιτητή απορρίφθηκε από το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο, ενώ στην πραγματικότητα είχε απορριφθεί από το Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λευκωσίας, το οποίο αποφάνθηκε ότι δεν υπήρχε μαρτυρία για συνωμοσία υπαλλήλων της Δημοκρα­ τίας σχετικά με αλλαγή της ταυτότητας και του ονόματος του αιτητή στους εκλογικούς καταλόγους Αναφέρεται επί­ σης στην απόφαση του Επαρχιακού Δικαστηρίου ότι η προσφυγή του αιτητή (247/77) για το ίδιο θέμα απορρίφθηκε από το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο γιατί ο αιτητής έπρεπε να εί­ χε πποταθεί στο Εκλογοδικείο. και ότι τούτο επιβεβαιώθη­ κε από το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο στην Αναθεωρητικής Δι­ καιοδοσίας Έοεση
5. Εάν η Αστυνομία κατέληγε στη διαπίστωση ότι ευθύνετο συγκεκριμένο άτομο για την αλλαγή του ονόματος και της ταυτότητας του αιτητή στους εκλογικούς καταλόγους τού­ το δυνατό να οδηγούσε—όπως ήτο και η απαίτηση του αι­ τητή που περιέχεται στην επιστολή του ημερομηνίας 19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1983—σε δικαστική δΙωΕη του εν λόγω ατό­ μου. Ως εκ τούτου η επιστολή του Αρχηγού της Αστυνο­ μίας ημερομηνίας 19 Οκτωβρίου 1983 είναι πράΕη προ­ παρασκευαστικής φύσεως η οποία σχετίζεται με τη δυνα2813 TrtaHlafyflldM p. PftslIlM v. Republic

(1885)τότητα ενάρΕεως δικαστικής διαδικασίας και γι" αυτό δεν εμπίπτει στα πλαίσια της δικαιοδοσίας του Ανωτάτου Δι­ καστηρίου δυνάμει του 'Αρθρου 146 του Συντάγματος (βλ. ϊενοφώντος κατά Δημοκρατίας, 2 Α.Α.Σ.Δ. 89, 92, 93, Πορίσματα Νουολογίας του Συμβουλίου της Επικρατείας της Ελλάδος, 1929-1959, 230, και Κυριακοπούλλου Ελ­ ληνικό Διοικητικό Δ ; καιο. 4η έκδ., τόμ. Γ, 91, 92). 5 Εν πάση περιπτώσει η ως άνω επιστολή ημερομηνίας 19 Οκτωβρίου 1983 είναι έγγραφο πληροφοριακού χαρακτή­ ρα και γι* αυτό δεν είναι εκτελεστή διοικητική πράΕη. Ως 10 εκ τούτου δεν είναι δυνατό να αποτελέσει το αντικείμενο προσφυγής δυνάμει του Αρθρου 146 του Συντάγματος (βλ. ΧατΖηπαναγή κατά Δημοτικής Επιτροπής Λευκωσίας,

(1974)3 Λ.Α.Δ. 366, Οικονομίδης κατά Δημοκρατίας,

(1980)3 Α.Α.Δ 219, Κυπριανίδης κατά Δημοκρατίας, 15

(1982)3 Α.Α.Δ. 611, και την απόφαση στις προσφυγές (107/79 και 131/79) Παυλίδη κατά Δημοκρατίας, η οποία εκδόθηκε στις 5 Απριλίου 1984). Για όλους τους ανωτέρω λόγους απορρίπτεται. η παρούσα προσφυγή 20 Επειδή ο αιτητής άνκαι στερείται επαρκών νομικών γνώ­ σεων επέλεΕε να εμφανιστεί άνευ συνηγόρου δεν θα τον καταδικάσω να καταβάλει το έΕοδα της παρούσης υπο­ θέσεως. Προσφυγή απορρίπτεται. 2814 25 3 C.L.R. This is an English translation of appearing at pp. 2811-2814 ante. the judgment in Greek 1984 June 23 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P-I TN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION MODESTOS PITSILLOS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS. THROUGH

1. ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
2. COMMANDER OF POLICE, Respondents. (Case No. 575/83). 5 10 15 Administrative Law—Administrative Act—Executory act—Article 146.1 of the Constitution—An act of a preparatory nature relating to the possibility of commencement of Judicial Proceedings is not within the ambit of Article 146.1—An act of an informative nature lacks executory charactet. By letter dated 19.9.1983 the applicant complained to the Commander of Police that there had not been traced the public officers who, according to his allegation, had altered his name.and identity card in the electoral lists, prepared for the by-election for President of the Republic in
3. By letter dated 19.10.83 the Commander of Police informed the applicant that there had not been found evidence against any member of the Police Force regarding neglect of duty. Hence the present recourse. . Held, dismissing the recourse

(1)If the Police had 2815 (198S) PItsillos v. Republic reached the conclusion that a particular person was responsible for the alteration in the electoral list of applicant's name and identity card, this could result in the prosecution of such a person. Consequently the letter of theCommander of Police is an act of a preparatory nature related 5 to the possibility of commencement of Judicial Proceedings and, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 146 of the Constitution.

(2)In any event the said letter is of an informative 10 nature and, therefore, is not an executory administrative act. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. Case· referred to: 15 Xenophontos v. The Republic 2 R.S.C.C. 89; HadjiPanayi v. The Municipal Committee of Nicosia

(1974)3 CX.R. 366; Economides v. The Republic

(1980)3 C.L.R. 219; Kyprianides v. The Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 611; 20 Pavlides v. The Republic, still unreported (recourses 107/79 and 131/79). Recourse. Recourse against the contents of the letter of the Commander of Police regarding the protest of the applicant that 25 there had not been traced the Public Officers who had altered applicant's name and identity card in the electoral lists which had been prepared for the by-election for President of the Republic in

1. Applicant appeared in person. 30 M. Florentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic with A. Vassiliades, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 2816 3 C.L.R. PItsillos v. Republic TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant complains about the contents of a letter of the Commander of Police, dated 19th October 1983, regarding a protest of the ap5 plicant that there had not been traced the public officers who, according to the applicant's allegation, had altered his name and his identity card in the electoral lists which had been prepared for the by-election for President of the Republic in
2. 10 ' The applicant submitted his complaint to the Commander of Police by his letter dated 19th September 1983, after a suggestion to that effect by the Attorney-General of the Republic, which is contained in his letter dated 30th August
3. 15 In the complaint of the applicant there is made, also, reference to conduct of police officers in relation to the investigation of his allegation regarding the alteration of his name and his identity card in the electoral lists. By his letter dated 19th October 1983 the Commander 20 of Police informed the applicant that there had not been found evidence against any member of the police force regarding neglect of duty. In this letter there exists an inacurracy, which is not, however, of material significance, because it is stated that 25 the action of the applicant 2184/82 was dismissed by the Supreme Court, whereas in fact it had been dismissed by the District Court of Nicosia, which found that there was no evidence of conspiracy of officers of the Republic in relation to the alteration of the identity card and of the 30 name of the applicant in the electoral lists. It is, also, stated in the judgment of the District Court that a recourse of the applicant (247/77) for the same matter was dismissed by the Supreme Court because the applicant ought to have applied to the Electoral Court and that this was affirmed 35 by the Supreme Court in Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal
4. If the Police had reached the conclusion that any particular person was responsible for the alteration of the name and of. the identity card of the applicant in the ele2817 Trlantefyllldes P. PltiJtto. v. Republic

(1985)ctoral lists this could result—(as was, indeed, the demand of the applicant contained in his letter dated 19 September 1983)—in the prosecution before a Court of such person. Consequently the letter of the Commander of Police dated 19th October 1983 is an act of a preparatory nature which 5 is related to the possiblity of commencement of judicial proceedings and, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 146 of the Constitution (see Xenophontos v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 89, 92, 93, Conclusions from the Case-Law of 10 the Council of State in Greece, 1929-1959, 230, and Kyriacopoullos on Greek Administrative Law, 4th ed., vol. C, 91, 92). In any event the aforesaid letter dated 19th October 1983 is a document of informative nature and for this 15 reason it is not an executory administrative act. It, therefore, cannot be the subject of a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution (see Hadjipanayi v. The Municipal Committee of Nicosia,

(1974)3 C.L.R. 366, Economides v. The Republic,

(1980)3 C.L.R. 219, Kyprianides v. The 20 Republic,

(1982)3 C.L.R. 611, and the judgment in recourses (107/79 and 131/79) Pavlides v. The Republic, delivered on 5th April 1984). For all the foregoing reasons the present recourse is dismissed. 25 As the applicant, even though he has no adequate legal knowledge, has chosen to appear without counsel I will not order him to pay the costs of the present case. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 2818 30 3 C.L.R. 1985 October 15 [A. Loizou, SAWIDES, LORIS, STYLTANIDES, KOURXIS, JJ-] MODESTOS PITCILLOS, Appellant, r. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH

1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBUC,
2. THE COMMANDER OF POLICE, Respondents. (Revisional JurisdictionAppeal No. 409). 5 10 15 30 Administrative Law—Administrative act—Art. 146.1 of the Constitution—Failure to institute criminal proceedingsnot within the ambit of said Art. 146.1—:Document containing informationas to the outcome of police investigations— Not an executoryact. In response to a complaint by the appellant that members of the Police Force had been involved in the change of his name and his identity card from thelist of voters prepared for the.by-election of President of the Republic in 1977 the Chief of Police informed the appellant by letter dated 19.10.83 that there had not been secured evidence against any member of the Police Force for any neglect of duty. The President of this Court dismissed a recourse· filed by the appellant as a result of the said letter. Hence the present appeal. Held, dismissing the appeal

(1)In so far as the letter of the Chief of Police contains a decision not to prosecute on account of nondiscovery of the persons responsible for the act complained of by the appellant constitutes a failure to institute Criminal proceedings, the exercise of such * See Pitsitlos v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 2811. 2819

(1985)PItsillos v. Republic authority by the appropriate organ is not within the ambii of paragraph 1 of Art. 146 of the Constitution.

(2)In so far as the said letter contained information regarding the outcome of police investigations it is not an executory administrative act. 5 Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: Xenophontos ν The Republic,2 R.S.C.C.

1. Appeal. 10 Appeal against the judgment of the President of the Supreme Court (Triantafyllides, P.) given on the 23rd June, 1984 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 575/83)* whereby appellant's recourse against the contents of the letter of the Chief of Police dated 19.10.1983 relative to 15 appellant's complaint for the non detection of the Public Officers who, according to his contention, changed his name and identity card from the list of voters that had been prepared for the by-election of President of the Re­ public in 1977, was dismissed. 20 Appellant appeared in person. M. Flourentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic with A. Vassiliades, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. A. Loizou J.: The recourse of the appellant was dis- 25 missed by the learned President of this Court, who tried the case in the first instance, on the ground that the decision contained in the letter of the Chief of Police dated the 19th October, 1983, challenged by him under Article 146 of the Constitution was an act of a preliminary character 30 relating to the possibility of the commencement of judicial process and as such not falling within the revisional juris­ diction of this Court under Article 146 of the Constitution. * ReDorted in 11985) 3 C.L.R. 2 8 1 1 . 2820 3 C.L.R. Pitsillos v. Republic A. Loizou J. In support of this conclusion he referred to the case of Xenophontos v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 89 at pp. 92-93, to the Conclusions from the Case Law of the Greek Council of State (1929-1959) p. 230 and to Kyriacopoullos, 5 Greek Administrative Law, 4th Edition, Volume III pp. 91-
2. Moreover the said letter was found by the learned President to be, in any event, a document of informative cha*racter and consequently not an executory administrative 10 act and as such it could not be the subject of a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution. This he based on the constant Case Law of this Court and reference was made in that respect to the cases of HadfiPanayi v. The Municipal Committee of Nicosia

(1977)3 C.L.R. 366; 15 Economides v. The Republic

(1980)3 C.L.R. 219; Kyprianides v. The Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 611 and the as yet unreported judgment in Pavlides v. The Republic Recourses Nos 107/79 and 131/79, delivered on 5th April

1. 20 The relevant facts of the case are briefly these. The appellant submitted to the Chief of Police a letter dated 19th September 1983, upon the suggestion of the AttorneyGeneral of the Republic to whom he had originally addressed his complaint, to the effect that members of the Police
2. Force and other public officers had been involved in the change of his name and his identity card from the list of voters that had been prepared for the -by-election of President of the.Republic in
3. In response to the aforesaid complaint of the appellant 30 the Chief of the Police by letter dated the 19th October 1983, informed him that there had not been secured evidence against any member of the Police Force for neglect of duty. It was as against the alleged "act/or decision of the res35 pondents dated 19th October, 1983, on the protest of the applicant with reference to the judgment of the Court in Civil Action 2184/82, that intentionally the appropriate officers changed his name and identity card for the Presidential by-election of 1977 and the discovery of the said organs," 40 that the recourse of the appellant was filed. 2821 A. Loizou J. Piteillos v. Republic

(1985)We have given, to the incomprehensible at times arguments of the appellant our best consideration and we have perused the relevant documents and we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal. Having regard to the subject matter of the said com5 plaint contained in the letter of the appellant, and the reply to it by the Chief of the Police, we have come to the conclusion in so far as the said letter contains a decision not to prosecute on account of the nondiscovery of a concrete person or persons as being responsible for the acts com- 10 plained of by the appellant, same constitutes in effect, as held in the Xenophontos case (supra), a failure to institute criminal proceedings and the exercise of such authority by the appropriate organ of the Republic which in this respect is so closely related to judicial proceedings in criminal 1$ cases, is not within the ambit of paragraph 1 of Article 146 of the Constitution and therefore this Court was rightly found by the learned President not to have jurisdiction to entertain such recourse under the said Article. On the other hand in so far as however, the said letter 20 of the Chief of Police contains merely information regarding the outcome of police investigations as regards the complaint of the appellant, and this appears to be the more certain in our view nature of it, it is not, and in any event it cannot purport to communicate to the appellant an exe- 25 cutory administrative act and being only a document of an informative nature, it is not capable of being the subject of a recourse under paragraph 1, of Article 146 of the Constitution. For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 2822 30