3 C.L.R. » - ' . , 1988June30.' »'' · , ' • [PIK1S,J.] : ' ; DMTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION • • ' "• ' , · ' ' • '.,''• THEANOAGATHANGELOUi ι . ,- V . * , ; . * * • ' ' ' ] '' ' " Applicant, V. T ; THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEDIRECTOROFSOCIALINSURANCEDEPARTMENT, Respondent. · * ' vu- (CaseNo. 1067/87). •· r 5 -* •'•.· • I '_' . > • Constitutional Law—Marriage, dissolution of—Constitution, Art. Ill— Foreigndecreeofdivorce1—Recognitionofr-Dependsonwhetherbothpar tieshadacquired thedomicile of theforeigncountry—Decision to grant widow'spension revokedonground that marriage hadbeen dissolved by an English decree—Matter of domicile neverprobed into—Revocation fraughtwithmisconception. ' - ' " - • ' \ . ' " * " · ' ·, • \ Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Collapseof—Whetheractcanbesavedon thebasisofanalternativefoundation.•l ·, , · . • , , *. .t 10 ; 15 Thedecision toawardwidow'spensiontoapplicantwas revokedonthe groundthathermarriagewithherlatehusbandhadbeendissolvedpriorto his deathby anEnglish decree.Therespondentwas notimpressedby the argumentthatthedecreewas, inthelightof Art 11Γof theConstitution,a nullity. Counselfor therespondentsoughttojustify thedecisionby referenceto anotherfactor,i.e.thattheapplicantdidnotcohabitwithherhusbandatthe timeof thelatter'sdeath. ., Held,annulingthesubjudicedecision: •t .- , . - · . - . · _ • ••/- · * ι
(1)Themarriageof thepartieswas subjecttothepro'visionsof Art 111 •1323 Agathangelou v. Republic
(1988)andthepersonalstatusofthepartiescontinuedtobesubjecttoitsprovisios unlessbothpartiesbecamethedomiciliariesofaforeigncountrythatrecognizedadifferent rulerespectingtheterminationofmarriage.Thedomicile ofthepartieswasneverprobedbytheDirector.Consequently,thebasisof thedecisionoftheDirectorisfraught withmisconception. 5
(2)Notwithstandingthecollapseofthepremiseuponwhichanadministrativedecision isfounded, suchdecisionmaybesustainedonanalternativefoundation, if such foundation surfaces incontrovertibly from theadministrativerecords.Thisisnotthecasehere. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1^ Casesreferredto: Tyllirou v.Tyltiros, 3R.S.C.C. 21; Metaxav. Mixta
(1987)1 C.L.R. 1; Koutsokoumnisv.Christodoulou
(1981)1 C.L.R.58; 15 Papasawasv.Johnstone
(1984)1 C.L.R. 38; PapaleontiouvMepublic
(1967)3C.L.R. 624; OryctacoLtd. v.TheRepublic
(1981)3C.L.R.174; Loucav.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.1640; KoraiandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1973)3CJL.R.546; 20 Mavrommatisv.EducationalServiceCommission
(1974)3C.L.R.126. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to revoke an earlier decision whereby widow's pension had been granted to the applicant on the death of her husband. 1324 25 3C.L.R. ..:· Agathangelou v. Republic N.Papaefstathiou,fortheapplicant. A\ Vassiliades, fortherespondnt. •_• . . . . •' • .• '•:'.' , . Cur: adv. vult. .· PIKISJ,readthefollowingjudgment.'The subject of thisre5 courseisthe.validityof adecisionoftheDirectorofSocialInsurancetorevokeanearlierdecision-wherebywidow'spensionhad been awarded totheapplicant on thedeath of her husband that hadoccurredon28.7.1981.Therevocatoryactwasfounded ona decreeofanEnglish Courtdissolving themarriagebetweenthe 10 applicant andherlatehusband-issued asfar back as30thApril, 1974.The.DirectortooktheviewthattheEnglishdecisionterminatedthemarriagebetweentheparties.Heremainedunimpressed byrepresentations madeon behalf of theapplicant tothe effect thattheEnglishdecreewasineffective inviewof theprovisions 15 ofArt111 oftheConstitutionandonthataccounthadnonoticeableconsequenses.on thestatusoftheparties. . I ,' .- \t · ' . ' . • • Counsel for the Republic acknowledged that thedecision of the.Directorwasfoundedonamisconceptionofthelaw,notably, theprovisions ofArt. 111>oftheConstitution andthat themar20 riage betweenthe^partieswasnotendedbythedecreeoftheEnglish Court.Acertificate issued by theHoly.Seeof Limassolon 24thAugust, 1987,certified thatthemarriagebetweentheparties wasneverdissolved. ·· ' '. . .,'f. -\* * ., -. Theambit andeffect of Art. 111of.theConstitution wasthe 25 subject of analysis in agood number;of cases.(See, inter alia, Tyllirouv.Jylliros,3 R.S.C.C.21;Metaxav.Mitta
(1987)-1. C.L;.R.;1; Koutsokoumnis,v. Christodoulou
(1981).l C.L.R. 58).InPapasawasv.Johnstone
(1984)1 C.L.R.38.1examined theimplicationsofArt.111 injuxtaposition totherelevantprinci30 piesofPrivateInternationalLawinordertoascertaintheposition ofmembersoftheGreekOrthodoxChurchwhoaredomiciliaries of aforeign country. Iconcluded that Art:;l11applies toevery >. memberof theGreekOrthodox Churchprovided theyaredomi1325 PikisJ. Agathangelou v.Republic
(1988)ciledinCyprus. Inthiscaseitisunnecessarytodebatefurther theimplications ofArt. 111oftheConstitution.Suffice ittosaythatthemarriage of theparties wassubject totheprovisions of Art. 111andthe personalstatusofthepartiescontinuedtobesubjecttoitsprovi- 5 sions unless both parties became thedomiciliaries of a foreign countrythatrecognized adifferent rulerespectingthetermination ofmarriage.Thedomicileofthepartieswasneverprobedbythe Director.Onthecontrary,heassumedthattheEnglishdecreeautomatically brought themarriagetoanendandalteredthestatus JQ of the parties. This was a misconception. The correct premise wouldbetotreatthepersonalstatusofthepartiesasbeingsubject tothe provisions of Art. I l l unlessit wasestablished thatboth becamedomiciliariesof theUnitedKingdom.Consequently,the basis of thedecision of theDirector isfraught withmisconcep- , , tion. Nevertheless,counselfortheRepublicsubmittedthatthedecisionissupportablebyreference toothergroundsdisclosedbythe facts inthefileofthecase.Inparticularhearguedthatasaresult of the separation hepresumed tohavefollowed theEnglish de- ~n cree,thepartiesceasedtocohabitandonthataccounttheclaimto widow'spension wasliabletobedismissed forfailure to satisfy a basicprerequisitetosuchentitlement,(Section 39,Law41/80) that is,cohabitation. Thequestionofcohabitation wasneverinvestigated bytheDi- 2 s rectornorweretheallegationsoftheapplicant thatcohabitation continued notwithstanding theissueof theEnglishdecreeofdivorce. Faulty reasoning or more precisely the collapse of the premise upon which an administrativedecision isfounded does notinevitablyexposethedecisiontoannulment.Thedecisioncan besustainedprovideditisunderpinned bymaterialintheadministrativerecordsestablishing analternative basisforitsvalidity. (Papaleontiouv.Republic
(1967)3C.L.R.624;OryctacoLtd.v. Republic
(1981)3 C.L.R. 174; Louca v. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1640).Foradministrative action tobevalidated through 35 1326 3C.L.R. 5 Agathangelou v.Republic PikisJ. thisprocess,thealternativefoundation mustsurfaceincontrovertiblyonconsiderationofthematerialinthefileandassuchbeobjectively noticeable. Korai. &.Anotherv. Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R.546;Mavrommatis v.E.S.C.
(1974)3C.L.R. 126).The existenceof such alternative basis supporting thedecisionmust notderivefrom speculationorforecastofthelikelyreactionofthe Administration toacorrectperceptionofthefactsorthelaw. vInthiscasetheissueofcohabitation between thepartieswas neverprobedbytheDirector,hisdecisionrestedsolelyontheer20 roneousappreciation of theimplications of theEnglish decree. Uponbanishmentof themisconception thereisnothinginthefile tosupportthesubjudice decision.·The;recoursemust, therefore, succeed.The subjudice decision isherebydeclared tobewholly voidarid'ofnoeffect whatsoeverandsoIdeclareittobepursuant ,c totheprovisions of para.4 (b)of Art. 146of the Constitution. Therewillbenoorderastocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1327