3 C.L.R. 1986 September 20 [TRIANTAFYLUDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION NEOPHYTOS SOFOCLEOUS. Applicant, v, THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICE AND/OR THE MINISTER OF LABOUR AND/OR THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Respondents. (Case No. 76185). Constitutional Law—Right to decent existence—Constitution. Article 9—Prevents discontinuance of public assistance, if it entails deprivation of means of decent existence. 5 10 15 20 Administrative Law —General Principles—Good administration —Wife of person receiving public assistance failed to comply with request to find a new job—Assistance discontinued—Husband cannot be penalized for behaviour of wife —Principles of good administration violated, even if decision could be justified under sections 3
(2)(b), 12(1} (b) or 3
(2)(g) of the Public Assistance and Services Law W/75. The applicant, who became completely unable to work was receiving C£34.- per month as public assistance. The payments were discontinued as from 1.10.84 under sections 3
(2)(b) and 12
(1)(b) of Law 10/75 on the ground that applicant's wife, who under the relevant legislation was responsible for the maintenance of her husband and their children, failed to comply with the requirements of a welfare officer, namely that, if her income from dressmaking was not sufficient for the purpose of such main22)7 Sofocleous v. Republic
(1986)tenance, she should find another job and, if the state of her health prevented her from doing so, she should produce a medical certificate to that effect. Hence the present recourse. Counsel for the respondent argued that if the said legal provisions do not justify the sub judice decision, such decision may be justified under s. 3
(2)(g) of the same Law. 5 Held, annulling the sub judice decision:
(1)The afore said provisions of the law cannot be applied or resorted to in a manner penalizing the applicant for the behaviour 10 of his wife. Even if the sub judice decision could have found justification thereunder it was reached contrary to the principles of good administration.
(2)Irrespective of the extent to which Article 9 of the Constitution imposes a positive duty for public assistance, it definitely prevents discontinuance of such assistance in a manner depriving the applicant of the means of de cent existence. The application of any of ihe aforesaid provisions of the law in a manner warranting such a course offends against Article 9. (5 20 Sub judice decision annulled. No order as to costs. jcourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to dismtinue the payment to applicant of the sum of £34.- per 25 onth by way of public assistance. N. Stylianides (Miss), for the applicant. A. VassiUadcs, for the respondents. Cur. adv. νtilt. P. read the following judgment. In 30 : present case the applicant is challenging the dec:sion the District Welfare Office which was communicated to η on 'the 15th December 1984 and by means of which :re was discontinued the payment to him of the amount C£34.- per month by way of public assistance. 35 TRIANTAFYLLIDES 2218 3 C.L.R. Sofocleous v. Republic Triantafyllides At the material time the applicant was forty-eight yea old, he was married and had three children, eighteen, si» teen and fourteen years old, respectively. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 His elder son had enlisted in the National Guard ί from July 1984 and his other two children were pupils ι a secondary school. The applicant had been working in the past as a maso but in 1973 he was injured in a traffic accident and h became unable to do any work; and he was granted pu blic assistance in order to meet his financial needs an> those of his family. The amount of public assistance originally granted t< the applicant was C£64 per month but as from Augus 1984, in view of the enlistment of his son in the Nationa Guard and as his wife was working part time as a dress maker, the said amount was reduced to C£34 per month Then, a welfare officer, who had been visiting the ap plicant and his wife at home, explained to them that a· under the provisions of the relevant legislation the wife ο the applicant was responsible for the maintenance of he husband and her children she should find other work i her income from dressmaking was not sufficient for thi; purpose and if the state of her health prevented her fron doing other work she should produce a medical certificate to that effect. As the wife of the applicant did not comply with the requirements of the welfare officer the payment of public assistance to the applicant was discontinued as from the 1st October 1984, under sections 3
(2)(b) and 12
(1)(b) of the Public Assistance and Services Law, 1975 (Law 10/75), which provide, respectively, that no one is granted public assistance for any period for which he is remaining voluntarily unemployed and that a wife is responsible for the maintenance of her husband and her children, under the age of eighteen years, to the extent to which her husband is unable to do so. Counsel for the respondents has argued that even if the aforementioned legislative provisions have been wrong2219 Triantafyllides Ρ Sofocleous ν Republic
(1986)ly applied m the present case the sub judice decision to discontinue the payment of public assistance to the appli cant could be upheld under other relevant legislative provi sions, such as section 3
(2)(g) of Law 10/75 which lays down that nobody is granted public assistance if he refuses to undertake remunerative work. It is not disputed that the applicant due to the state of his health is completely unable to work and that, therefore, he does not remain voluntarily unemployed, nor can it be said that he refuses to undertake remunerative work. 5 10 Irrespective of the attitude of the applicant's wite towaids the matter of finding full time or more remunerative work, and without generalizing regarding the application of the aforementioned legislative provisions, I cannot accept that m the present case such provisions could be properly 15 applied, or resorted to, so as to, in effect, penalize this helpless applicant for the behaviour of his wife. I, there fore, have no hesitation in holding that, even assuming that from the strictly legal point of view the sub judice de cision could have found justification on the strength of 20 any one of the said legislative provisions, the said decision was reached contrary to the pnncples of proper ad ministration and in excess and abuse of powers and has to be annulled Moreover, such decision conflicts with Article 9 of the 25 Constitution which provides that ever} person has the right to a decent existence, because irrespective of the ex tent to which the said Article 9 imposes a positive duty to make available public assistance in a particular case, it definitely prevents the discontinuance of public assistance 30 in a way entailing deprivation of the means necessary for decent existence; and the application of any of the aforesaid legislative provisions in a manner warranting such a course would appear to offend against Article 9 In the light of all the foregoing the sub judice decision must be annulled, but Τ shall not make any order as to its costs Sub judice decision annulled No order as to costs 2220 35