(1987)1986 March 15 (TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ1 INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION LIZA SAWA. Applicant, ν THE PORTSAUTHORITY OF CYPRUS, Respondent. (CaseNo. 621/84). Legitimate interest — Promotions — Decisiongiving retrospectivity to an earlier promotion — Recourse challengingsuch earlierpromotion dismissed — Applicant does not possess a legitimate interest to challenge the said retrospectivity. AdministrativeLaw — GeneralPrinciples— Properadministration — Good faith (sone of itsessentialcharactenstics— Decisiongivingretrospectiveeffect to apromotion — In compliance with anagreement between the Ministryand the trade union of the employees of the respondent — Retrospectivity necessary for thepurposes ofproper administration. 5 By meansof thesub judice decision therewas given retrospectiveeffect to 1 0 the promotionof the interestedparty to the post of Accounting Officer, 1st Grade. The recourse of the applicant,whereby she had challenged the first decision topromote the interested party, was dismissed earlier to-day (See Sawa v.PortsAuthonty of Cyprus
(1987)3 C L.R. 715) Held, dismissing the recourse:
(1)In view of the dismissal of the said 1 5 recourseandinthelightof the decisioninHadjiSawa v. The Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 76atp.80 the applicanthas nolegitimate interestto challenge the retrospectivity of thepromotion of the interestedparty.
(2)In anyeventandasthe retrospectivity was the resultof compliancewith an agreement between the competentMinistry and the trade union of the 2 0 employees of the respondent, the sub judice decision was necessary for purposes of proper administration, one of the essential characteristics of which Isgood faith. Recoursedismissed. No orderasto costs. 2 5 722 3C.L.R. S a w a v. Ports Authority isjses refen~edto· Pitsillosv.CBC.
(1982)3 CLR 208. Vorkasv.TheRepublic
(1984)3 CL R.418. Amencanos ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 CL..R.540: 5 HadiiSawa v. TheRepublic
(1982)3 CLR 76. Recourse. Recourse against the retrospective promotion, as from 1st January, 1983, of interested party to the post of Accounting Officer, 1st Grade. 10 A.S. Angelides,for the applicant. N.Papaefstathiou,for the respondent. Chr. Triantafyliides, for the interested party. Cur. adv. vult TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.read thefollowingjudgment. By means 15 of the present recourse the applicant is complaining against the retrospective promotion, as from the 1st January 1983, of interested party V. Zannettito the post of Accounting Officer, 1st Grade. 20 25 30 Ihave just delivered a judgment dismissing recourse No.202/ 84* which was filed by the applicant against thepromotionof the interested party to the post concerned and the contents of such judgment should be read together with thepresent judgment. Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of the principle of administrative law that an administrative act comes into force as from the date when it is made the sub judice promotion of the interested party could not have been given retrospective effect as aforesaid ,andhe went on toargue that,in any case, such promotion could not have been made retrospectively as from a date earlier than the 26th August 1983, when itwas decided by the Board to set in motiontheprocess of the filling of the post in question. It was argued, on the other hand, that the applicant has no legitimate interest entitling her to challenge the retrospectivity of the promotion of the interested party, especially, if itis found m See
(1987)3C.LR 715 723 TriantafylHdes P. S a w a v. Ports Authority
(1987)thattheredoesnotexistanyvalidreasonfortheannulmentofsuch promotion. Under Article 146
(2)of the Constitution only a person whose existinglegitimateinteresthasbeenadverselyanddirectly affected as a result of administrative action may resort to the remedy of a 5 recourse under Article 146
(1)of the Constitution (see, inter alia, Pitsilhs v. The Cyprus BroadcastingCorporation,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 208, 215, Vorkasv. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 418,421 and Americanos v. The Republic,
(1985)3C.L.R. 540,545). Itisto be particularly noted that inhisjudgment in HadjiSawa v. The Republic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 76,PikisJ.said thefollowing{at p. 80): 10 «Havingconcluded thatapplicant failed tomakeoutacase for interfering with the sub-judice decision, he ceasestohave any legitimate interest to complain about the date of 15 appointment oftheinterestedparties,inthiscaseretroactively made, forthat does not affect hisposition intheserviceinany way. Consequently, I shall refrain from touching upon this issue.The recourse isdismissed.» Inthe lightof the foregoing and ofthe dismissal ofthe recourse 20 No.202/84, against thepromotion ofthe interestedparty, 1amof the view that the applicant hasno legitimate interest entitling her to challenge the later decision about the retrospectivity of the promotion of the interested party. In any event, as regards the substance of the matter, Iwould 25 observe that, as the promotion of the interested party appears to have given the complained of retrospective effect as a result of adherence bythe respondent toan agreement bythe competent Ministrywith thetrade union ofthe employees ofthe respondent, the subjudice in the present case decision appears to have been 30 necessary for purposes of proper administration, one of the essential characteristicsof which isgood faith. In the result, the present recourse fails and it is dismissed accordingly; but with no orderas toitscosts. Recourse dismissed. 35 No orderastocosis. 724