(1988)1988May26 [PIKIS, J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION "IEKKLISIA TOUTHEOU TISPROPHETIAS". Applicants, v. . THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH (a)THECENTRALCOMMITTEEFORTHEPROTECTION OFABANDONEDTURKISH-OWNEDPROPERTIES, (b)THEDISTRICTCOMMITTEEOFLIMASSOLFOR THEPROTECTION OFABANDONED TURKISH-OWNED PROPERTIES, (c)THE MINISTEROFINTERIOR, (d)THEDISTRICTOFFICER OFLIMASSOL, Respondents. (CaseNo. 235/87). Generalprinciplesofadministrativelaw—Onecannotapprobateandreprobate theself-sameact dependingon thefate ofone'srequest—Requestfor lease ofabandoned Turkishproperty—When refused,applicants challenged the order ofrequisition whereby suchproperties were vestedfor their protec,tiontotheCommittee—Aclassicalinstanceofapprobationandreprobation. Reasoning ofan administrative act—Refusal togrant toapplicants, a charity registeredunderCap.41 in1983,aleaseofabandonedTurkishproperty— Thoughthereply wasbriefand innowayexplanatoryofthereasonsthereof, theactwilt be confirmed, asthedismissalofapplicants'requestwasinevitable,because theydonotqualifyasdisplacedpersons. 1050 3 C.L.R. Ekklisia tou Theou v. Republic Thefacts of thiscasesufficiently appearin thejudgmentof theCourt Recoursedismissed. Recourse 5 Recourse against therefusal oftherespondents tolease toapplicantspremisesoravacant site,which wereabandoned Turkish properties,tobeused for erecting abuilding appropriate tohouse "TheChurch of theGod of Prophesy". A. Eftychiou, for the applicants. Chr. Ioannides, for therespondents. 10 ._ Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. The applicants "The Church of theGodof Prophesy" areacharity registered under the provisions of the Charities'Law -Chapter 41. Assuch they area bodycorporate with power toown movable and immovableproperty. The charity was registered in the year 1983 (15th April, 1983). On29thJuly, 1986,theapplicantspetitioned therespondents , responsible for themanagement andadministration of abandoned Turkish properties, for the lease to them of premises or avacant site tobe used for erecting a building appropriate tohouse "The 2o Church of the God of Prophesy" and satisfy their needs. The "Church of theGod of Prophesy", itis stated in their application, has been functioning in Cyprus since 1928. As a result of the Turkish invasion theapplicants were deprived of property atNicosiaand Kyrenia made inaccessible and inamenable for use for * s theirneeds;soitwas alleged. When the attention of counsel was drawn to the fact that the applicants wereinexistentasacharitableentity before 1983heexplained thatthe property wasregistered in thenameof the mem1051 Pikis J. Ekklisia tou Theou v. Republic
(1988)bersof"TheChurchoftheGodofProphesy"andwasputtothe usesapprovedbytheestablishmentof "TheChurchoftheGodof Prophesy" before incorporation asacharity.Abuildingwasrequiredfor theneedsofthecharityatLimassol.Inquiriesmaderevealed that of the 46 members of "The Church of the God of 5 Prophesy" at Limassol 11weredisplaced. The application was refused pursuant toandinexerciseofthepowersvestedintherespondentsbytherulesgoverningtheleaseofabandonedTurkish property for the satisfaction of the needsof displaced persons. Thereplygiventotheapplicantswasadmittedlyverybriefandin ,« nowayexplanatory ofthereasonsforrefusal. Counselfortherespondents submitted thattherefusal wasinevitable;in somerespects,approvaloftheapplication wasbeyondthepowersofthe respondents .Theapplication for theleaseofpropertywastwofold. Fortheleaseofpropertysuitablefortheirneedsorthelease *-* of avacant site for development intoatemple. Idoubt whether thesecondlegoftheirapplication waswithinthepoweroftherespondentstoapprove;assumingofcoursethatotherprerequisites were satisfied. Toqualify forthegrantofaleaseofabandonedTurkishprop- 2 ^ ertytheforemost requisiteisthattheapplicantsshould bepersons whoweredisplaced asaresultof theTurkish invasion.Theapplicantsdidnotqualify asdisplacedpersons;infacttheywereinexistentasacorporateentityatthetimeoftheTurkishinvasion. Thestatusof "TheChurchoftheGodofProphesy"beforeincorporation and therelationship with its members were in no way ^3 explained orarticulated before theCourt,ortherespondents for that matter. The application wassolely fastened totherightsof the applicantsasaseparateentity.Consequently theapplication was doomed to failure. Even if we were to suppose that they qualified asdisplacedpersonstheirapplicationagainwouldhave tobedismissed astheauthorityoftherespondentswasprimarily 30 confined totheleaseofpropertyfor thesatisfaction oftheneeds ofdisplacedindividualsandtheirfamilies. Notwithstanding thepetition of theapplicants to therespondents andexplicit acknowledgement thereby oftheexistenceof 35 1052 3C.L.R. 5 Ekklisia tou Theou v.Republic PikisJ. powerinlawonthepartoftherespondentstogranttheirapplication,inface of respondents'refusal tosatisfy theirrequest they mountedachallengetotheconstitutionalityoftheorderofrequisitionwherebyTurkishpropertiesvestedintheCommitteeforthe protectionofabandonedTurkishproperties. Thisisaclassicinstanceofanattempttoreprobateanactfollowingitsearlierapprobation.Thisiswhollyimpermissible.Itis asettledprincipleofadministrativelawthatyoucannotapprobate andreprobate theself-same actdepending on thefate of thereIQ quest. The application is dismissed. The subjudice decision is confirmed pursuant to theprovisions of Article 146.4(a)of the Constitution. 1 Recoursedismissed. 1053