(1988)1988June1 [PIKIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION KYRIACOSZ.CHRISTODOULIDESANDANOTHER, Applicants, v. THECYPRUSTEl^COMMUMCATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondents. (CaseNo. 19/88)· Abatement—Ofrecoursefor annulment—Revocation ofthesubjudice act— OnlyannulmentbytheCourtsapsanyotherpendingagainstthesameact recourseofUssubjectmatter—Notwithstandingrevocation,annulmentnecessarytosafeguardapplicant'srightsunderpara. 146.6oftheConstitution—TheobligationsimposedunderArt146J ofthe Constitutionarean 5 additionalreason,whytherecourse hasnotbeenabatedbyreasonofthe revocation. Recoursefor annulment—Revocationofsubjudiceact—Inconsideringvalidityoftherevokedact, theCourtisnotboundbyreasonofsuchrevocation toannulit—Moreover, the Courtisnotboundbytheopinion ofthepar- JQ ties. Inthiscase,therespondentsrevokedthesubjudicepromotions.Theinterestedpartiessignifiedtheirintentionnottochallengebyarecoursetherevocatoryact-TheCourt,however,proceededandtriedtherecourseonits meritsand,finally,annulledthesubjudicedecision.Infollowingsucha 15 course,theCourtexpoundedtheprincipleshereinaboveindicated. Subjudicedecisionannulled. 1162 3 C.L.R. Christodoulides v. CY.T.A. Casesreferredto: Payiatasv. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R.1239; Vakis v.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 534; KikasandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R. 852; PhilippidesandSonv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2588;. Nicolaidesv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C L A .9; * ValiantisandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R.151; Mavronychisv. 77ieindustrialTrainingAuthority
(1986)3CUR.1427; Kyriakidesv.EducationalServiceCommission
(1987)3CJ-.R.457; KyHacouandOthersv. MinisterofInterior
(1988)3C.L.R. 643; . Republic v.Nissiotou
(1985)3C.L.R.
- Recourse! Recourse againstthedecisionof therespondentstopromote theinterestedparties tothepostsofDeputy Manager.Technical ServicesandDeputyManagerAdministrativeServicesinprefer enceandinsteadofthe applicants. A. S. Angelides, fortheapplicants. C.Jiadjioannou, fortherespondents. E.Anastasiadou (Miss)for Μ. ΕHades, forinterested party No.
- L. KaloyirouforX. Xenopoulos, forinterestedparty No.
- L.Kaloyiroufor N. Papaefstathiou, for interestedparty No. • . ' .
- Cur. adv. vult. 1163 Christodoulidesv.CY.T.A.
(1988)PIKISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Thisisarecoursemade under article 146.1of theConstitution for theannulmentof the decision oftherespondentsnotified on2.1.88,whereby5ofthe 8interestedpartieswerepromotedtothepositionofDeputyManagerTechnicalServices,and3ofthemtothepositionofDeputy 5 ManagerAdministrative Services.In thecourseof theproceedings, notably on28.3.88,therespondents revoked thedecision. Nevertheless,therecoursewaspursuedattheinstanceoftheapplicantsforadeclarationofnullityunderpara.4(b)ofarticle146 oftheConstitution. Ajudicialdeclarationvoidingtheactionoftherespondentsis sought, as counsel for the applicants explained, for a twofold purpose:(a)Tosafeguard theirinterestunderpara.6ofarticle146and, (b)toentitlethemtotheremediesprovidedforinpara.5ofar- 15 tide 146oftheConstitution. Counsel for therespondents,aswellascounselfor theinterested parties, acknowledged that theapplicants have arightto pursuetheirapplicationtoconclusionnotwithstandingtherevocationof theact.Therevocation ofanadministrativeactdoesnot 20 put an endtotheproceedingsinwhichitsvalidityisimpugned. Thiswasauthoritatively statedtobethelawbytheFullBenchof the Supreme Court in Payiatas v.Republic.
(1984)3C.L.R. 1239. The implications of arevocatory action onpendingpro.ceedings were reviewed in some detail in Vakis v. Republic 25
(1985)3C.L.R.534. Itwasexplainedthatarevocatorydecision is in itself anexecutory actliable toreview attheinstance ofa partyprejudiced thereby.Inthiscasetheinterestedparties,those whohaveappeared,signified theyhavenointentionofchallening therevocationofthesubjudicedecision.And,asamatteroffact, ™ theydonotopposetheannulmentoftheact.Onlytheannulment ofanadministrativeactbytheCourtobliteratestheactforallpurposesandsapseveryotherrecoursedirectedagainstthesameact of a noticeable subject matter {Kikas and Othersv.Republic 1164 *« 3C.L.R. 5 lO ,c Christodoulides v.CY.T.A. PikisJ.
(1984)3C.L.R.852).Aseriesof subsequentofdecisionsofthe SupremeCourthasacknowledgedandgiveneffect totheprinciplesexpounded intheabovecases.(See,interalia, Philippides andSonv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.2588;Nicolaides v.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R.9;Valiantisv.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R. 151;Mavronychisv.TheIndustrialTrainingAuthority
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1427;Kyriakidesv. EducationalService Commission
(1987)3C.L.R.457). Therevocationofanadministrativeactisnotofitselfconclusiveof theinvalidity of therevokedaction;norisanadmission ofinvaliditybindingontheCourt.Proceedingsunderarticle146 areofaninquisitorialcharacterdesigned toensurethattheAdministrationoperateswithintheboundsofthelaw.Therefore,the Courtmustitself besatisfied thattherevokedactionisdefective beforeitdeclaresittobeinvalid.Counselfortherespondentsinformed theCourtuponexaminationofadministrativerecordsthat thedecision,subjectmatteroftheproceedings,isdefectivefora numberofreasons:(i)Failure toobservethe-provisions of Regulation 10
(5)(b) and
(6)of thePersonnel Regulations (Personnel Regulationsof Cyprus Telecommunications Authority General Regulations 1982,Official Gazette,SupplementNo.3,Part 1,p.957). Noncompliance stemmedfrom failure tofurnish reasonsfor departingfromtherecommendationsoftheStaffBoard. 25 (ii)Failuretomakeanycomparison betweencandidateseligibleforpromotion; and (in)failuretodulyreasonthedecisiontaken. 30 Counselfortheapplicantssubscribedtothecorrectnessofthe assesmentofthesituationmadebycounselfor therespondents; counselfortheinterestedpartiestoo,came,itseems,afterexaminationofadministrativrecords,tothesameconclusion. 1165 PikisJ. Christodoulides v.CY.TJV.
(1988)Fortheabovereasonsthedecisionisliabletobesetaside. Asearlierindicated,counselfortheapplicants submittedthat theannulmentisalsonecessaryintheinterestsoftheefficacy of judicial review of administrative action andtherightsaccruing uponannulmenttothesuccessful litiganttomovethemachinery 5 for therestorationoflegality.InKyriacouandOthersv.Minister ofInterior,
(1988)3C.L.R.643theFull Benchof theSupreme Court,decidedbymajority, thatjudicialannulmentofadministrativeaction imposesupon theAdministration certain obligations for nonabservanceofwhichresponsibleofficers maybeliablein JQ contempt. (See Kyriacou and Othersv. Minister ofInterior
(1988)3 C.L.R. 643;Republic v. Nissiotou
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1335). Onceithasbeendecidedthatthesubjudicedecisionis,inthis case, liable toannulment in theinterest of theprotection of the jg rightsof applicants underpara.6of article 146of theConstitution,itisunnecessary togiveadefinitive answer tothesecond leg of the argument of counsel, founded on the provisions of para.5article 146.IfIweretovertureanopiniononthematter,it would betotheeffect thattheargumentsfounded onpara. 5of 20 article 146areanadditionalreasonjustifying anapplicanttopursuearecoursetotheendnotwithstandingrevocationandtheabsenceofanyintention toraisecivilproceedings.Paragraph 5of article 146imposes,upon annulment, specific obligationsupon the Administration andeveryotherAuthorityoftheRepublicto ^5 restorelegalityinthecomprehensicemannerstatedtherein.And, itappearstomethatitconfersuponthepartyinvokingtheadministrativejurisdiction of theCourtacorrespondingrighttoseeka declarationunderpara.4(b)ofarticle146intheinterestofthe efficaciousprotectionofthis rights. Intheresult,therecoursesucceedsandthesubjudicedecision isdeclared tobewhollyvoidpursuant totheprovisionsofpara. 4(b)ofarticle 146oftheConstitution. Subjudicedecisionannulled. 1166