clr/1988/1988_3_1203.pdf

(1988)Havingdeclaredbothappellantsasprohibitedimmigrants,theMinister ofInteriorissueddeportationordersaswellasdetentionorders.Theseordersweremadethesubjectofarecourse.Theapplicantsappliedforaprovisional ordersuspendingtheeffectofthedeportationorder.Theapplicationwasdismissed.Hencethisappeal. 5 Held,dismissingtheappeal'(A)PerPilas,J.:A.Loizou,P.,Demetriades,J. andKourris,J.concurring:

(1)Aprovisionalorderisanextraordinaryremedy.Anegativeactcannotbesuspendedbysuchanorder.Theordermayonly suspendapositive act Theprerequisites of its issuanceare flagrantillegalityandirreparabledamage. 10

(2)Inthiscasetheappellantsfailedtoproveirreparabledamage.

(3)Theapplicationofthefirstappellantiswhollymisconceived.Itaims notonly atthesuspensionoftheactofdeportation,butatitssupplementationtoo,i.e.anauthorizationtostayinthecountry.Inthecaseofappellant 1thedeportationordercannotbesuspended,becausesuchsuspension will notconferonhimarighttoremaininthecountry. 15

(4)Themaincontentionofappellant2isthathewasdeportedwithout being given arightofpriorhearingandwithout arevocationof hisresidencepermit However,arevocationmaybeachievedinanindirectway.

(5)Appellants failed to establish manifest illegality. Therightof the Statetoregulatethelengthofstayofanalienisanattributeof sovereignty. Art 30.1 of theConstitution entitles theappellantstobepresentatthentrial,butdoesnotgivearighttostayinthecountrypendentelite. (B)PerSawides,J.:

(1)Appellant'scontentionthattherehasbeenaviolation of Art 13*of theInternational Convention onCivil andPolitical Rights (ratifiedbyLaw 14/69)isuntenable,'becauseinthiscasetheorder fordeportationwasmadeforreasonsofnationalsecurity.

(2)Theprinciplesapplicableincaseofanapplicationforprovisionalorderareby nowwell settled.Theappellantsfailedtoestablishflagrantillegality. They,also,failed todischargetheburdenof persuadingtheCourt thattheywillsufferirreparabledamage. 20 25 30 Appealdismissed. Quotedatpp. 1212-1213post. 1204 3 C.L.R. Moyo & Another,v. Republic Casesreferredto; Amanda Marga Ltd. v.TheRepublic

(1985)3CJLR.2583; Sofocleousv. TheRepublic

(1971)3C.L.R. 345; Ceorghiades (No.1)v.TheRepublic

(1965)3C.L.R. 392; 5 Iordanou(No.2)v.TheRepublic

(1966)3C.L.R. 696; Sofocleousv. TheRepublic

(1981)3C.L.R. 360; FrangosandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1982)3C.L.R. 53; Economidesv. TheRepublic

(1982)3C.L.R. 837; Sayigh v.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 277; 10 Colocassides v. TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R. 1780; Rodatv.TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R. 937. Appeal. Appeal against thejudgmentofaJudgeofthe Supreme Court of Cyprus (Stylianides, J.)givenonthe17th May, 1988(Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 311/88)* whereby applicant'sappli­ cation foraprovisional order prohibiting therespondents from taking anymeasurefortheimplementationofthedecision tode­ portapplicantsuntilthedeterminationoftherecourse against such decision was dismissed. 20 E.Serghides,fortheappellants. P.Clerides,fortherespondents. Cur.adv.vult. A. LOIZOUP.:ThejudgmentoftheCourtwillbedeliverdby H. H.Mr.Justice Pikis; save that Η.Ή. Mr. Justice Sawides *

(1988)3CUR.976 1205 Moyo& Anotherv.Republic

(1988)willaddreasonsofhisown. PIKISJ.:Theappellantsareforeignnationals,citizensofZimbabweandBritain,respectively.Theywereadmittedandwerelicensedtostayin thecountryforalimitedperiodof timefor the expresspurposeofstudyingat"YOUTHWTTHAMISSION",a 5 limited company dedicated tothe promotion, according tothe MemorandumofAssociation,ofChristianfaith asperceivedby theirAssociationand,Christiancharity.Whyanassociationwith purelyreligiousandcharitableobjectiveswasregisteredasanoffshore limited company, isa matterthat does not concern us in JQ theseproceedings. Appellant 1 waslicensed tostayinthecountryupto10.3.

1. Thepermitofappellant2extendedto31.7.
2. On 10thFebruary, 1988,appellant 1 appliedforanextension ofhispermitandrevisionofitstermsinawaythatwouldentitle 15 him,inadditiontoreceivinginstructionsasastudent,toteachas wellattheYOUTHWITHAMISSION,atitsLimassolbranch. Notwithstandingtheexpirationofhispermiton 10.3.88appellant 1continued his stayin Cyprus.On22.3.88anorderofdeportation wasmadebytheMinister,following thedeclaration ofboth 20 appellantsasprohibitedimmigrants.Theorderwasaccompanied by an orderfor theirdetention.On 30.3.88theappellantschallenged thevalidityof theorder of deportation and incidentally theretotheorderofdetentionfounded thereupon.Theinitiationof therecoursewasfollowed byanapplication foraprovisionalor- «5 derstayingtheordersofdeportation anddetention oftheappellantspendingthedeterminationoftherecourse.Theapplication foraprovisionalorderwasdismissed,theCourtholdingthatappellantshadfailedtoestablishtheprerequisitesforsuchremedy. Theappellantsfailedtomakeouteitheracaseofirreparabledamagesuchaswouldwarrantaprovisionalorderorsubstantiatethe allegationthatthesubjudicedecisionisflagrantlyillegal. Counsel for theappellantsrenewed before usthe submission thatthesubjudicedecisionismanifestly illegalandinvitedusto 1206 3C.L.R. Moyo& Anotherv.Republic PikisJ. makeaprovisionalorderandputanearlyendtothebreachesof thelaw.Hepursuedwithlessvigourthesubmissionthatappellantsarelikelytosuffer irreparabledamageiftheorderofdeportationisnotsuspendedpendingthedeterminationoftherecourse. g Itistrulydifficult tocontemplatetheoccurrenceofanythinginthe natureofirreparabledamage,thatis,damageirretrievablebyany oftheremediesavailabletoasuccessfulpartyupontheannulment ofadministrativeaction,consideringthecircumstancesoftheappellants,particularly theabsenceofanunqualifiedrighttowork ,Q inthecountry. Counselfortheappellantsfoundedhissubmissionsofflagrant illegality-inthecaseofappellant 1-onthefailureoftheAuthoritiestogivepromptreplytohisapplication for extension of his permittostayandtherightallegedlyaccruingthereupontoafor,* eign subject tostayinthecountrypending thedeterminationof suchapplication.InvitedbytheCourttosupporthisproposition byauthority,ifavailable,hereferred ustoEnglishstatutoryprovisionsthathavenoapplication inCyprus.Ourlegislation-Aliens and Immigration Law, Cap. 105 - and Regulations made thereunder, recognise no suchright toanalien;norindeedany right tostaybeyondthetimeexpresslylimitedbythepermitauthorisinghisstayinthecountry. CounselfortheRepublicsubmittedthatappellant 1remained illegallyinthecountry after 10.3.88.TheConstitutionofCyprus expresslyrecognisesarighttotheRepublictoregulatemattersrelatingtoaliensinaccordancewithinternationallaw(Article32). InAmandaMargaLtd, v.Republic

(1985)3C.L.R.2583itwas explainedthattherightofacountrytorefuseentrytoaliensis,in accordancewithinternationallawanincidentofthesovereignty ofthecountry;asovereignrightthatcannotbeabridgedexceptby ™ bindingtreatyorconvention.TherightoftheStatetoregulatethe lengthofstayofanalieninthecountryislikewiseanattributeof thesovereigntyandterritorialintegrityofthecountry. Professor Jacobsobservesinhisworkontheinterpretationandapplication 35 oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights,neithertheConventionnortheprotocolstheretoimposeanyrestrictionsonthe 1207 PikisJ. Moyo& Anotherv.Republic

(1988)right toexpelanalienfromthecountry(ClarendonPress,Oxford 1975,p.31). Theprinciples relevant tothemaking of aprovisional order were reviewed by A.Loizou,J.,in Sofocles Sofocleous v.Republic

(1971)3 CX.R. 345 (see,also, CleanthisGeorghiades 5 (No.1)v.Republic

(1965)3CX.R. 392;andlordanisG.lordanou(No.2) v.TheRepublic

(1966)3C.L.R.696)andwerethe subjectofdiscussionandanalysisinanumberofsubsequentdecisions. (See inter alia, Sophocleous v. Republic

(1981)3 C.L.R. 360; and Frangos and Others v. Republic

(1982)3 10 C.L.R.53).TheprinciplesgoverningtheexerciseofthejurisdictionoftheCourttomakeaprovisionalorder,institutionalisedby rule 13oftheSupremeConstitutional CourtRules 1962,arethe following: (A)Aprovisional orderisanextraordinary remedyinthat anorderismadeoutsidethecontextofthetrialorinquiryinto themeritsofthecase,thenaturalforumfortheexerciseofthe administrativejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtandtheaward oftheremediesincidentalthereto. (B)aprovionalordermaybemadeinthefaceof- 20 (i)Evidenceofirreparabledamage,thatisdamagethatcannotberemediedbyanyoftheremediesavailableuponannulmentof theimpugned administrativeact.Eveninthefaceof suchdamage,theCourtmay,nonetheless,refuse anorderifit islikelytoplaceinsuperableobstaclesin thewayof theAd- 25 ministration.And (ii) flagrant illegality. For theillegality toqualify as flagrant,itmustbeglaringandassuchself-evident andimmediatelyidentifiable. (See,interalia,FrangosandOthersv.Republic

(1982)3C.L.R.53;Economidesv.Republic

(1982)3 30 C.L.R. 837 (F.B.). Applyingtheseprinciplestothefactsrelevanttothedeportationoftheappellants,wenoticethat:- 1208 3 C.L.R. Moyo&Anotherv. Republic PikisJ. (a) The appellantswholly failed toprove- theburdenbeing on the appellants (See,Colocassidesv. Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 1780) -anything approximating irreparable damage. Also, 5 (b)theapplicationof appellant 1for aprovisional orderis wholly misconceived for, ineffect, itaimsnotmerely thesus­ pensionof theactof deportationbutits supplementation too, by anorderof theCourt authorisinghimtostay inthecountry notwithstandingtheexpirationofhis licence. 10 Theforemost purposefor whichaprovisional orderismadeis topreserve thestatusquo,thatis,thesituation thatobtained be­ fore themakingoftheimpugnedadministrativeactA provisional order,likeeveryinterimmeasure, mustbearemedyof akindthai is inthejurisdiction of theCourttomake.Ineffect, itis aprovisional annulmentof theactuntilthefinalorderof the Court 15 20 2<r Where theactchallenged is anegative one,thatis,adecision leavingunchangedthelegalregime,its suspension canhaveno consequences ontherightof thesubject. For thisreason thereis noamenitytosuspend by aprovisional orderanegative actbecausethesuspension canhavenonoticeableconsequenceson the rights of thepursuer. This is explained in Sayighv.Republic

(1986)3C.L.R.277 alongside withreference toGreek caselaw. Thereis nojurisdiction toreverse by aprovisional orderanega­ tiveactwhichisprecisely whatappellant 1is seeking toachieve intheseproceedings. Thejurisdiction of theCourtunderarticle 146isconfined toareviewof thelegalityof administrative action with a view toits annulmentwhere illegal. The assumption οί furtherjurisdiction would transgress thelimits setby article 146 andoffend theprincipleof separationof powersenshrinedin the Constitution. The suspension of thedecision would beof noassistance to appellant 1,as it would confer no right to him to stay inthe country.Thisbeingthepositionitisdoubtful whetherhehasale­ gitimateinteresttoimpugnthesubjudice act Directprejudice of 1209 PikisJ. Moyo& Another v.Republic

(1988)anexistinginterest isaprerequisitefor theinvocation andexerciseofthejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtunderarticle 146.1. We shall saynomoreonthat aspectof thecase,asthejurisdictionisintrinsicallyconnectedwiththemeritsofthecase. Thereisnosuggestionthattheorderofdeportationwasmade 5 byanincompetentorgan.Thecontentionofcounselinrelationto appellant2isthat,likeappellant 1,hewasnotgivenarighttobe heard inthe matter of hisdeportation and thathewasdeported withoutpriorrevocation ofhispermitauthorisinghisstayinthe country.Counsel for theRepublic submitted thattherevocation JQ wasinitselfanactrevocatoryofthepermit.Therevocationofan administrativeactmay,counselpointedout,beachievedinanindirect way,astheGreekcaselawestablished. (See,Conclusions from theGreekCouncilofState, 1929-1959,pp.199, 201). Theappellantsfailedtoestablishthatthedecisionismanifestly ^ illegal.The arguments raisedin supportof theappeal wereprimarilydirectedtothemeritsofthedecisionwhichwillbethesubjectofreviewonthehearingoftheapplication.Thehuman right acknowledged byarticle30.1,safeguarding unimpededaccessto the Court,does notrequire thataliensbeallowed to stayin the ~o country pending thehearingofajudicial proceeding.Whatthis articleentitles theappellants,istobepresentatthetrialoftheir case. (See,Sayighv.Republic

(1986)3C.L.R.277). SAWIDES J:Thisisanappealagainsttherefusal ofaJudge ofthisCourtsittinginthefirstinstancetograntaprovisionalOrderinrecourse 311/88 "prohibiting allandeachoneof thedecision todeport theapplicants oranyof themand/ortakeanyact for theaforesaid purposeuntilthedeterminationofthisrecourse". Appellants are foreign.nationals, citizens of Zimbabwe and Britain,respectively,andfiledtheaforesaid recoursechallenging ~0 thedecision of theMinisterofInteriordeclaringappellantsprohibitedimmigrantsandissuingdeportationanddetentionorders. Ineednotembarkonthefactsofthecaseastheyappearinde1210 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Moyo&Another v. Republic Sawides J. tail in thedecision of thetrialJudge which wasdelivered on the 17May, 1988,andin thejudgmentjust delivered byMr. Justice Pikis. The learned trial Judge dismissed appellant's application for aninterimOrderontheground thatthey"havenotdischarged the burden of persuading theCourt thatthey will suffer irreparabledamage.Even iftheallegationsof theapplicantsconstituteirreparable damage, which the Court finds that they do not, they arenot suchastoprevailoverthegeneralinterest". Thelearned trialJudgeafter alucidexposition oftheprinciples governing thegrant ofprovisional Orders inAdministrativeLaw hepronounced as follows: "The provisional order in Administrative Law is different from aninterlocutory orderinthedomain ofPrivateLaw.Section 32 of the Courts of Justice Law is not applicable. The principlesandthegroundson whichaprovisionalorderisgiven inAdministrative Lawdiffer from thoseobtainingin Civil Law. A provisional Order is a drastic remedy which would be sparingly given. It is granted when the administrative act is taintedwithflagrant illegality, thatisillegality.whichispalpablyidentifiable onthefaceof therecourse. Provisional Order,also,maybegranted when thereis clear .evidence of irreparable damage, which must be specifically andsuccinctly pleaded. 25 Asaprovisional orderisanexceptionaldiscretionary measure, the general interest should not be sacrificed andit should prevail over the private interest of the applicant - (see, inter alia, Monica Rodat, v. The Republic of Cyprus,

(1988)3 C.L.R.937andcasescitedtherein)." 30 Anumberofgroundshavebeen setout inthenoticeof appeal which may be summarized to three which were the grounds arguedbycounselfor theappellants. 1211 Sawides J. Moyo&Another v. Republic

(1988)Thefirst contentionwas thattherehadbeenflagrant illegality in view of thefact thatappellant No. 2 was andstill is lawfully resident in Cyprus pursuant to a provisional permit dated 1st March, 1988 which expires on the 31st July, 1988, and which has never been revoked or cancelled by therespondents. Also, 5 thatthough appellant's No. 1permithadexpired therespondents have failed totakeadecision onhis applicationofrenewal of his permission tostay inCyprus andinanyeventhadnevercommu­ nicatedanydecisionrefusingsuchextension. Itwas thesubmission of counselfor appellants thatthe finding jg of thetrialCourtthattherewas noflagrantillegalityinthe present case was wrong andcontrary totheevidence adduced on behalf of theappellants.Counselfurther argued thatthetrialCourt failed tocorrectly appreciate andapply therules of naturaljusticeregu­ lating theexercise of therespondentspower andauthoritytoissue , deportation orders in thatit failed properly toconsider theevi­ denceadduced as tothegrounds for theissueof the deportation orders. Thesecond contentionwas thatirreparable damage will result totheappellants by therefusal of thegranting of aprovisional or- «0 der and argued thatthetrial Courtwas wrong infindingtothe contrary. The third contentionof counsel is thattheact of the respon­ dents nottoafford theappellantstheopportunity tomakean ob­ jection andbeheardby theappropriateauthority amountstoavi- ~ς olationof Article 13of theInternational ConventiononCiviland PoliticalRightsratified by Law 14/69. I shall first deal with thelast contentionof counsel for appel­ lants. Article 13of theInternationalConventiononCivil andPoliti- 30 cal Rights,ratified by Law 14/69,reads as follows: " Αλλοδαπός,νομίμωςευρισκόμενοςεντηεδαφική επι1212 3 C.L.R. Moyo&Another v. Republic Sawides J. κρατεία τινός των Συμβαλλομένων Κρατών,δύναται να απελαθήεξαυτής μόνονσυνεπείααποφάσεωςνομίμως ειλημμένης και,εκτός οσάκις άλλως επιβάλλωσιν ισχυροί λόγοι εθνικής ασφαλείας, δέον όπως επιτρέπηται εις αυτόν ναυποβάληένστασιν εναντίοντης απελάσεωςτου καιζητήσηαναθεώρησιντηςοικείαςαποφάσεως,παριστά­ μενοςπροςτούτοενώπιοντηςεπίτούτωαρμοδίαςαρχήςή προσώπουήπροσώπωνειδικώςοριζομένωνυπότηςαρμο­ δίαςαρχής." Thetranslation inEnglish readas follows: "An alien being lawfully within theterritorialjurisdiction of the states parties to theConvention may be deported from it only uponadecision lawfully taken and,unless otherwise im­ posed by strong reasons of national security, it should beper­ mitted to him to submit anobjection against his deportation andask for areconsideration of therelevant decision, present­ inghimself for thispurpose before therelevantappropriateau­ thorityorperson orpersons especiallyappointedby the appro­ priateauthority." Thedeportationof theappellant inthepresentcase was, asap­ pearing ontheorder for deportation,due toreasons of national security and,therefore, theprovisions of s. 13donotcomeinto operation.Nevertheless inthepresentcase theappellants werein­ formed by thepoliceof thereasons of theirdeportation andwere afforded theopportunity of making a statementexplaining any­ thingtheywishedtosay against theirdeportation. Icomenow totheothertwo grounds. Theprinciples relevant tothemakingof provisional orders are-wellsettled by aseriesof decisions of this Court.Inthecase of Sofocleous v.TheRepub­ lic

(1971)3C.L.R. 345, A. Loizbu, J.after making reference to the cases of CleanthisGeorghiades(No. 1) v. TheRepublic

(1965)3 C.L.R. p. 392, IordanoufNo. 2) v. The Republic

(1966)3 C.L.R. 696 and to Greek authors such as Professor. Tsatsos in his book "The Recourse for Annulment before the 1213 Sawides J. Moyo & Another v. Republic

(1988)CouncilofState",2nded.,p. 284,Veglerison"TheCompliance of the Administration to theDecision of the Council of State", 1934atpp.112,114,115,concluded asfollowsatpp. 352-353: "Theprinciplethatthemanifest illegalityofanadministrative act is a ground upon which an order for a stay may be 5 granted has also been accepted in American jurisprudence, moreexplicitly than inthejurisprudene ofothercountries.It canbeseeninJaffe 'JudicialControlofAdministrativeAction' p.692,whereitisstatedthatwheretheadministrativeactionis illegaltheconcern withthepublicinterestisonitsfaceeasily JQ resolved. The American authorities for thisproposition are: Groupv.Finletter, 108FSupp.327 (D.D.C. 1952),andArmour v. Freeman, 304F 2d. 404 (D.C. Cir. 1962). In fact sucharulingonanapplication foraprovisionalorderusually intheUnitedStatesmakesvainapursuitofthemerits.Itmay, ,^ therefore besaidwithcertaintythatwhenanadministrativeact is flagrantly illegal aprovisional ordermay begranted.Itis, however,agroundtobeapproached withtheutmostcaution, as it may be tantamount todisposing thecase on its merits, somethingdiscouraged byRule 13of theSupremeConstitutionalCourtRules,thoughthisrulecannotbeheldasdivesting thisCourtfrombeingthewatchdogoflegality." Rule 13of theSupreme Constitutional CourtRulestowhich reference ismadeintheabovedecisionprovidesasfollows: "13.-

(1)The Court, or in proceedings under Article 146 anytwoJudgesactingin agreement, may,atanystageof the proceedings,eitherex propriomotu oron theapplicationof anyparty,makeaprovisionalorder,notdisposingofthecase onitsmerits,ifthejusticeofthecasesorequires.

(2)Aprovisionalordermadeunderthisrulemay,eitheron «« the ground of urgency orof other special circumstances,be madewithoutnoticeanduponsuchtermsitmaybedeemedfit inthecircumstances; 1214 25 3 C.L.R. 5 JQ 25 Moyo& Another v.Republic Sawides J. Provided that all parties affected by an order made under thisparagraph shallbeserved forthwith with notice thereof so astoenablethemtoobject toitandupon such anobjection the Court, after hearing arguments by or on behalf of the parties concerned, may either discharge, vary or confirm such order under such termsasitmaydeem fit" Having heardtheagrumentofcounselfor theappellantsonthe question ofillegalityIhavenotbeenpersuadedinthepresentcase that theappellants have shown agood cause for thegrantingofa provisional order restraining their deportation on the ground of flagrant illegality. Without going into the merits of the case which will be the subject of adjudication if, after the hearing of the recourse the Courtreachestheconclusionthatthedeportation oftheappellants wasillegaltheappellantswillbeentitled totheremediescontemplatedby Article 146.6of the Constitution. Icomenow tothelastpoint, thatofirreparabledamage. 20 25 30 I agree with the finding of the trial Judge that the appellants had not discharged the burden of persuading theCourt that they willsuffer irreparabledamage andthisappliestothisappeal, after hearing argument by counsel for the appellants. But again the question of irreparable lossisamatterwhich if therecourse succeeds on themerits may give rise toaclaim for damages by the appellants. Itiswell settled however that even incase where the non-makingof theorderwillcauseirreparable damage totheapplicant suchmatter willnotbeallowed toprevailoverthegeneral interest. In Cleanthis Georghiades (No. 1)(supra) at p. 395 we readthefollowing: "Itisacardinal principleof administrative law thatwherea provisional order is sought in an administrative recourse and whereontheonehand thenon-makingof theorder will cause damage, even irreparable, to the Applicant but on the other handthemakingof such anorderwillcause serious obstacles 1215 Sawides J. Moyo&Anotherv. Republic

(1988)totheproperfunctioning oftheadministrationthenthepersonalinterestoftheApplicanthastobesubjectedtothegeneralinterest of the public and theprovisionalorder should not be granted.Itgoeswithout sayingthatwherethenon-makingof theprovisionalorderwillnotcausetoanApplicantirreparable 5 damage such an order will notbe made,in any case,on the strengthoftheapplicationmadebyApplicantforthepurpose." ForalltheabovereasonsIfindthattheappellantsfailed tosatisfy theCourtthatthedecision ofthelearned trialJudgeindismissingtheapplication foraprovisionalorderwaswronginprin- JQ cipleoramounted toa wrongexerciseof hisdiscretion. Before concluding I wish to endorse what was said byPikis, J. in his judgmentthattheauthoritiesshouldafford anopportunity tothe appellantstoenterthecountryforthepurposeofbeingpresentat thetrialoftheirrecourse. *5 Appealdismissed. 1216