(IW7) 1987March 13 [DEMtTRlADESJ ] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE146OF THE CONSTITUTION TEKNEV R.C. SPA AND TOUROONSULT, OF ITALY,WITHA THEODOSSIADESAND Κ PAPADOPOULOS, Applicants, ν THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS, THROUGH 1 THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, 2 THE TENDER BOARDTHROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 3 THE CYPRUSTOURISMORGANISATION, Respondents (CaseNo 331/86) Recourseforannulment— Revocation of sub judice decision— Whether andin whatcircumstancestheapplicant isentitledto judgment onthe ments The sub judice decision.whereby thetenderforthesubmission ofstudies and plans for the tounstic development of Paphos was awarded toa fbrm.other thantheapplicants,wasrevokedafterthefiling ofthisrecourseand thus the question arose whether the applicants.who were amongthe tenderers, areentitledtojudgmentonthe ments 5 He\d,annulhng thesubjudice decision,thatinthe lightofthedecisionsin Salem ν TheRepublic {1985)3CLR 453 at454-455 andAgathangelouν The Republic
(1986)3CLR 1512 andasonthematenalbefore theCourt 10 theconclusionis thattherespondentswere wrong inacceptingthetenderof thesuccessful tenderers,thesubjudice decisionshouldbeannulled Subjudice decisionannulled No orderastocosts 15 Casesreferredto Salem ν The Republic
(1985)3CLR 453, Agathangelou ν The Republic
(1986)3CLR1512 296 3 C.L.R. Tekne V.R.C. v. RcpubUc Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to award the tenderforthetouristicdevelopmentofPaphosareatoafirmother than the applicants. 5 A S.Angelides, fortheapplicants. N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ. readthefollowingjudgment.Theissuethat 10 arisesintheseproceedingsiswhether,inspiteoftherevocationby the administrative organ which took the subjudice decision, the applicants are entitled to a remedy under Article 146 of the Constitution. Thefactsthatledtothislitigationare,inanutshell,thefollowing: 15 The Government of the Republic, in association with the Cyprus Tourism Organization, in their desire that the Paphos District is further developed as far as touristic facilities are concerned, asked national and international experts to submit studiesand plansforthetouristicdevelopmentofthearea.Several 20 international organisations submitted tenders to the Central Tender Board of the Government, out of which four were shortlisted, one ofthem beingtheapplicantsofthe recourse. The administrative organs, that is the respondents who were entrusted with deciding towhich organisation tograntthe tender, 25 finally decided in favour of another firm. The applicants, as a result,filedthepresentrecourseclaiming,amongstothers,thatthe successful tenderer did notcomplywiththetermsand conditions required bythe respondents. After the filing of thisrecourse the respondents sought advice 30 from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic and asa resultoftheadvicetheyreceivedtheyrevokedthesubjudicedecision. Counsel for the applicants submitted that in spite of the 297 Demetriad*· J. TCIUM V.R.C. v. Republic
(1987)revocation of the sub judice decision the recourse has to be examined onitsmeritssincethesaiddecision hasbroughtabout consequences inrelationtowhichtheapplicantsmaybeentitled todamagesorotherremedy. In Salem v. TheRepublic,
(1985)3 C.L.R 453 at 454-455, 5 Triantafyllides P.hadthistosayontheissue: «Asthe sub judice detention order appears tohave been executed and as its execution was interwoven with the execution of the subjudice deportation order which, inthe end,wasnotcompleted,Iamoftheviewthatthisisnotacase 10 inwhichitispropertosaythatthisrecoursehasbeenabated duetohavingbeendeprivedofitssubject-matter; especially as it seems that the aforementioned two orders while they wereoperativehavebroughtaboutconsequencesinrelation to which, if the applicant issuccessful in this recourse, he 15 might be entitled toseek redress underArticle 146.6 of the Constitution.» A. Loizou J., in Agathangelou v. The Republic(Judgment delivered in Recourses Nos. 779/85, 876/85, 888/85 and 991/85, on the 9th October, 1986, not yet reported)* isin full 20 agreement with the legal position expressed in Salem's case, supra. Iam,also,infullagreementwiththeinterpretation ofthelegal positionasgivenbymybrotherJudges. Havinggonethroughtheexhibitsputatmydisposalbycounsel 25 fortherespondents,whichgiveparticularsofthetendersaskedby the respondents, and having studied the offer of the successful tenderer,Ifind thattherespondentswerewronginacceptingthe offerandthatthesubjudicedecisionshouldbeannulled. Orderaccordingly. 30 Therewillbenoorderastocostsasnoneareclaimed. Subjudicedecision annulled. Noorder astocosts. AS. 35 1Uport*din(198613C.LR 1512. 298