3C.L.R. 1987 October21 (STYUANIDES J ; INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OF THECONSTITUTION 1 SOFOCLIS HAD.IIIOSSIF, 2.M1CHAELA.ZAPITIS, 3. NICOSΚ ASPRIDES, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH (a) TH
Article 1466 of the
Constitution aperson isonlyentitledtoseek compensation after he obtains ajudgment inannulmentproceedings before the Administrative Court Therefore, if hesuffered anydamages from thesub judice administrative act, though it ceased to exist after the filing of the recourse he isentitledtohave therecoursedetermined,asajudgment of the 2 5 Court
paragraph 4 of Article 146 is a sine qua non of a claim for damages before acivil Court,
Article 1466 Subjudice decision annulled No orderas tocosts 30 Casesreferredto Aspn ν TheRepublic, 4 RS CC 57 Panayiotopoullou-Toumazi ν Nicosia Municipality
(1986)3 C LR 35, Kynakides ν TheRepublic, 1R S C C 66, Andreou ν TheRepublic
(1975)3 C LR 108, Agrotisv TheRepublic (\983) 3C L R 1397, Kntiohsv TheMunicipalityofPaphos
(1987)3 C L R 1274 1568 35 3 C.L.R. Hadjiloslf& Other* v.Republic Styllanides J . Recourse. Recourse against the order of Requ jition No 1227 affecting applicants' land situated in the ν cnity of Kato and Pano Lakatamia 5 A Ladas,for the applicants St Theodoulou, for the respondents Cur adv vult STYLIANIDESJ readthefollowing judgment By meansofthis recourse the applicants seek the annulment of an Order of 10 Requisition No 1227, published in the Official Gazette in Supplement No 3, Part II,on5/9/86 Theapplicants aretheowners inequal undivided shares of land situated in the vicinity of Katoand PanoLakatamia Municipality. shown onDLΟ mapsas Plots357,360,334,335 and333, sheet 15 plan XXX/12 ΕI and II,Complex Β The aforesaid property of the applicants was for the first time requisitioned on 7/9/79 by virtue of order published in Supplement No 3, PartII,page 851 Thesaid orderwas renewed in 1980, 1981, 1982 for further periods of one year by 20 administrative acts 990, 909 and 962 respectively On 2/9/83 a new Order of Requisition of thesame said property was published in the Official Gazette of 9/9/83 (see Supplement No 3, Part II, page 761) This Requisition Order was renewed for two further years by Orders published intheOfficial Gazetteon31/8/84 and 25 30/8/85 (see Supplement No 3, Part II,page 1141 of 1984 and Supplement No 3, Part II,page 1116 of 1985) Ultimately on 5/9/86thesub judice order was issued by theMinisterof Defence in virtue of the powers delegated to him by the Council of Ministers 30 The purpose of the requisition istoserve public benefit, ιe for the defence of the Republic of Cyprus The requisition of property isgoverned inthiscountryby Article 23 8 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Requisition of Property Law 1962 35 The matenal part for this case of the Constitutionalprovision is ^hat movable or immovable property may be requisitioned for a penod not exceeding three years Inthe Requisition of Property 1569 StylianideeJ. HadjIIoeif&Othersv.Republic
(1987)Law 1962, Section 4, which wasenacted incompliance with the Constitution included thisthree yearslimitation. BytheRequisition ofProperty (Amendment)Law 1966(50/66) the three years were increased to five years. This provision of Law 50/66 was inconsistent and contrary to the Constitution 5 and, therefore,
Article 179
unconstitutional as being repugnant tothe provisions of Article23.8(c)of the Constitution. By the Requisition of Property (Amendment) Law, 1986 (Law 43/86) the number of years was again reduced to three in order, obviously, to bring the lawinconformity with the Constitution. 10 The three years limitation period imposed by the Constitution cannot be evaded by issue of new orders or extending old ones. The requisition isof limited duration and it cannot exceed three yearseven though thepurposeofpublicbenefit tobeachieved by means of requisition isnotof limitedduration.There isnothing to 15 prevent the continued subsequent achievement of the same purpose of public benefit bymeans of a supervening compulsory acquisition and the procedure for such compulsory acquisition may be set in motion atanytime duringthe period of requisition. {Aspriv. The Republic, 4 R.S.C.C.57). 20 The sub judice administrative act - order of requisition - is contrary toArticle23.8(c) oftheConstitution and Section 4of the Compulsory Requisition Lawasamended byLaw43/86.Thesub judice order is not a requisition order unconnected with the previous requisitions for other purposes or for different 25 circumstances. The immovablesofthe applicantsareunderrequisition and are in possession of the respondents eversince 1979, for the same purpose, thedefence oftheRepublicofCyprus.Iftheseproperties are, and we have no doubt, necessary for the defence of the 30 Republic,thentheprocedurefortheacquisitionofsameshouldbe putinmotion.Therequisitioncannotservethepublicad infinitum orfor a period overthethree yearssetdown inthe Constitution. Counsel for the respondents submitted that a notice of acquisition
the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law 35 wasrecentlypublished intheOfficial Gazette (Official GazetteNo. 2258, dated 4/9/87, Notification 1395).Neitherthepublicationof thenoticeofacquisition,norevenanorderofacquisitionaffect the 1570 3 C.L.R. 5 Hadjilosif &Othersv. Republic Stylianldes J. ownership orthepossession of theapplicants.Neither ownership, norpossession istransferred totheacquiring authorityby virtue of such notice.The property vests only intheacquiring authorityon payment or deposit with the Accouiitant-General of the sum agreed or determined to be paid as compensation for the acquisition of any property. (See Section 13 of the Compulsory Acquisition Laws 15/62, 25/83, 148/85; Aspri v. The Republic supra; Panayiotopoullou-Toumazi v. NicosiaMunicipality
(1986)3C.L.R.35.) 10 Itwas further argued by counsel for the respondents that this Court should not proceed to the annulment of the sub judice decision for tworeasons:theexpiry of theperiod of the requisition and the publication of the notice of acquisition. The sub judice orderof requisition isof limited duration.Itisspecified toone year 15 from thedateofthepublication of theorderintheOfficial Gazette. Itexpired on 4/9/87. The applicants contend that they suffered damages due tothe sub judice order. In Cyprus paragraph 6 of Article 146 of the Constitution reads 20 asfollows:- 25 30 35 «6. Any personaggrievedby anydecision oractdeclared to be void
paragraph 4 of this Article or by any omission declared thereunderthatitought nottohave been madeshall be entitled, if his claim is not met to his satisfaction by the organ, authority or person concerned, to institute legal proceedings in a court for the recovery of damages or for being granted otherremedy andtorecover justand equitable damages to be assessed by the court or to be granted such other just and equitable remedy as such courtis empowered to grant.» («6. Παν πρόσωπον ζημιωθέν εξ αποφάσεως ή πράξεως ή παραλείψεως κηρυχθείσης ακύρου κατά την τετάρτην παράγραφον τ ο υ παρόντος άρθρου δικαιούται, εφ' όσον η αξίωσις α υ τ ο ύ δεν ικανοποιήθη υπό τ ο υ περί ου πρόκειται οργάνου, αρχής ή προσώπου, να επιδίωξη δικαστικώς αποζημίωσιν ή άλλην θεραπείαν επί τ ω τέλει, όπως επιδικασθηεις τ ο ύ τ ο δικαία και εύλογος αποζημίωσις καθοριζομένη υπό τ ο υ δικαστηρίου ή παρασχεθη εις τούτο άλλη 1571 StylianidesJ. Hadjilosif & Others v. Republic
(1987)δίκαια και εύλογος θεραπεία ηντο δικαστηριονεχειτην εξουσίαν να,παρασχη ») In Kynakides ν The Republic 1 RS C C 66 it was stated at pages 74-75 «Article 172 lays down the general onnciple that the 5 Republic is made liable for any wrongful act or omission causing damage committed in the exercise or purported exercise of thedutiesofofficers orauthoritiesof the Republic' It is clearly aimed at remedying the situation existing before the coming intoforce of theConstitutionwhereby theformer 10 Government of the Colony of Cyprus could not be sued in tort The pnnciple embodied in Article 172 has been given effect, interalia, intheConstitutionby means of paragraph 6 of Article 14b inrespect of allmatterscomingwithin thescope 1 5 of such Article 146 Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, in respect of all wrongful actsoromissions referred toinArticle 172 andwhich acts or omissions come within the scope of Article, 146 an action for damages lies in a civil Court only
paragraph 6 of such article, consequent upon ajudgment of 20 this Courtunder paragraph 4 of the same Article, and insuch cases an action does not lie direct in a civil court by virtue of the provisions of Article 172 » It is well settled that
Article 146
6 of the Constitution a person is only entitled to seek compensation after he obtains a 25 judgment in annulment proceedings before the Administrative Court Therefore, if he suffered any damages from thesub judice administrative act, though it ceased to exist after the filing of the recourse he is entitled to have the recourse determined, as a judgment of the Court
paragraph 4 of Article 146 is a sine 30 qua non of a claim for damages before acivil Court,
Article 1466 (SeeAndreou ν TheRepublic {1915)3C LR 108,Agrotis ν The Republic
(1983)3 CL R 1397, Louhs Kntiotis ν The Municipality ofPaphos case No 137/83 delivered on 6/7/87 still unreported *) Inthe present case the sub judice administrative act is null and *Reportedm
(1987)3CLR 1274 1572 35 3C.L.R. Hadjllosif&Othersv.Republic SrylUnlde·J. voidandofnoeffect asbeingcontrarytotheConstitutionandtht law. Astheapplicantscontend thattheysuffered damagestheyare entitled to an annulling decision, even though the one yeai 5 durationoftheorderhasexpired. Intheresultthesubjudicerequisitionorderisdeclaredtobenul! andvoidandofnoeffect whatsoeverunderArticle146.4(b). Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Subjudiceorderdeclared nullandvoid. Noorder astocosts. 10 1573