(1988)1988July7 [PIHS,J.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION PHOTISPAPAPHOTIS, Applicant, v. THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 999187). Executoryact—Confirmatoryact—Attributesofaconfirmatoryact. Executory act—Re-examination of—No dutycastonadministration toreexamineadecision uponpetitionofasubject. Actsordecisionsinthe senseofArt.146.1 ofthe Constitution—Dismissalof anEducationalOfficer—Petitionfor re-examinationofdecision—Refusal ongroundthatnonewfacts wereplacedbeforetheadministration—Not withintheambitofArt. 146.1 Theapplicantwasdismissedfrom thePublicEducationalServiceonthe groundofprotractedabsencefromduty.Hisrecoursewasdismissed.An appealtotheFullBenchofthisCourtisstillpending. Theapplicantpetitionedtherespondentforhisreinstatement Hedidnot invokenewfacts,butsimplyreferredtohisrecord,participationandcontributiontothestrugglefortheIndependenceofCyprus. The respondents refused to reconsider theirdecision.Hence thisrecourse. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Aconfirmatorydecisionisonesignifying adherencebytheAdministrationtoacoursealreadyplottedbyadministrativeaction. 1368 3 C.L.R. Papaphotis v. E.S.C.
(2)Infact,nonewmaterial,warrantingre-examinationwasplacedbeforetheadministration.Ontheotherhand,nodutyiscastontheAdminis. tration tore-examineanexecutory decision uponthemerepetition ofa partyprejudiciallyaffected thereby. 5
(3)Thesubjectmatterofthisrecourseisinamenabletojudicialreview andonthataccounttherecoursemustbedismissed. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Pierisv.TheRepublic'
(1983)3 C.LJ*.1054; 10 Koudounaris v. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.479; Varnava v. TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R. 566; Papademetriouv.TheRepublic
(1974)3C.L.R.28; Theodorouv.Attorney·General
(1974)3C.L.R.213; , 15 LordosAparthotelsLtd. v.TheRepublic
(1974)3C.LR.471; loannouv.CommanderofPolice
(1974)3C.L.R. 504; DecisionsoftheGreekCouncilofStateNos:1297/57and895/54. Recourse. 20 Recourse against therefusal of the respondents torevoke their decision todismiss applicant from the service as aresult of disciplinary proceedings against him for absence from duty without leave. E. Efstathiou, for the applicant. R. Petridou (Mrs.), for the respondents. 25 Cur. adv. vult. 1369 Papaphotis v.E.S.C.
(1988)PIKIS J. read the following judgment. The applicant, Photis Papaphotis, was a teacher of Theology in public education. In 1980disciplinary proceedings were raised against him for absence from duty without leave. He pleaded guilty to the charge and on hisown admission hewas found guilty of absence from 5 duty without the leave of theAuthorities.The facts founding the charge were expressly admitted, ascounsel whorepresented him in those proceedings affirmed. The respondents imposed a sentenceofdismissal from the service,effective from 26/10/80.Applicant challenged his dismissal by a recourse to the Supreme Court. His recourse was dismissed and the subjudice decision confirmed (Papaphotis v.Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 915).An appeal was taken, notably Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 411, whichis still pending before theFull Bench of the Supreme Court. On October 7, 1987,the applicant addressed, through his advocate, a letter to the respondents seeking the revocation of the decision whereby hewasdismissed. Inthisletternofacts arecited warranting there -examination ofthedecision, savethatreference is made to an earlier letter of the applicant addressed, through hiscounsel, to the Minister of Education dated 26/8/87; wherein readiness is expressed on the part of the applicant to abandon hisappeal andrelinguish anyclaim tocompensationprovided thedecision entailing hisdismissal isrevoked. In that letter, too,noreference ismadetoanythingthatwouldqualify asanew factjustifying re -examination ofthedecision todismisshim.Attention isdrawn tothemoral dutyof the Statetore -employ the applicant on account of his great contribution to the struggle for theindependence of Cyprus, coupled with an appeal to reinstate himintheeducational service. On October 14, 1987,the respondents dealt with the application of 7/10/87 and noted that nothing new was placed before themjustifying there -examination of thedecision entailing the dismissal of theapplicant. Furthermore,theyobserved that Revisional Appeal No.411ispending before theSupreme Court and 35 that they would await and abide byitsresult. Respondents raised 1370 20 25 30 3C.L.R. Papaphotisv.E.S.C. PikisJ. objection to thejusticiability of thedecision complainedof for lackof executorycharacter.Intheircontention thedecisionimpugnedintheseproceedingsaddsnothingnewtothatof25/10/80 andthereadinessof theAdministration toabidebytheoutcome 5 ofjudicialaction.TheamenityoftheCourtto'reviewthesubjudicedecision was,withtheagreementofcounsel,setdownfor determination*before inquiring into the merits of thecase.It mustbeadded, however, thatthemeritsof thecase,thatis,the factsdisclosed inthetwolettersoftheapplicant,areinterwoven Q withthejusticiabilityofthecomplairit'oftheapplicant Counselfortheapplicantmadeamovingpleafocussed onthe personalcircumstancesoftheapplicantandthemoraldutyofthe Statenottosuffer oneoftheleadersofthestruggleforindependence,wagedbetween 1955and 1959,toremainunemployedat <- theageof 55.Thisdutyshouldprevailovereverythingelse.Ireminded counsel that the exercise of thejurisdiction of theSupremeCourttoreviewadministrativeactionisnotunfetteredbut subjecttothelimitationssetoutinarticle 146andtheconstraints inherentthereto. ' ' ^ Inthecourseoftheoralhearing,itemergedfromthetestimonyofMr.M.Pilides,AssistantRegistrar,thatthepersonalfileof theapplicantwasnotbefore therespondentson 14.10.87when theydealtwithhispetitionforrevocationof theearlierdecision andre-examination ofhisdismissal.Lastly,counselfortheapplicant made reference to Law 42/87 ratifying the Convention concerningvocationalrehabilitationandemploymentofdisabled persons. Salutary asthey are,theprovisions of theConvention leaveunaffected theissuescallingforresolutioninthiscase. Counsel for the respondents raised a threefold argument in supportofthecontentionthatthesubjudicedecisionisinamenabletojudicialreviewunderarticle146:Firstly - the decision is confirmatory of the decision of 25.10.80andassuchlackstheexecutorycharacternecessary to justifyjudicial review. 1371 PikisJ. Papaphotisv.E.S.C.
(1988)Secondly-nofacts wereplacedbeforetherespondentswarrantingorjustifyingre-examinationoftheearlierdecision. Thirdly -nodutyiscastontheAdministration tore-examineadecisionuponthepetitionofthesubject. Shesupportedhersubmission byreference toGreekandCy- 5 pruscaselaw. Allthree submissionsarevalid for thereasonsexplainedbelow: Aconfirmatory decision isone signifying adherence by the Administration toacoursealreadyplotted byadministrativeac- 10 tion.Theprinciplesrelevanttotheidentification of confirmatory actswerethesubjectofdiscussion anddecisioninnumerouscases. (See,inter alia, Koudounarisv. Republic
(1967)3C.L.R. 479; Varnava v.Republic
(1968)3C.L.R.566; Papademetriou v.Republic
(1974)3C.L.R.28;Theodorou v.Attorney -Gene- 15 rat
(1974)3C.L.R. 213;LordosAparthotels Ltd. v. Republic
(1974)3C.L.R.471;loannouv.CommanderofPolice
(1974)3 C.L.R. 504). In Pieris v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1054 the FullBenchoftheSupremeCourtreviewed theattributesofconfirmatory actsandthetestapplicabletodeterminingwhetherany 20 givendecision qualifies asconfirmatory. Asnoted in theabove casetheforemost considerationisthecontentofthetwoactsand theireffect in law.If theyareessentially similar,thatis,ifthey produceidenticalconsequencesinlaw,thesecondactisproperly regardedasconfirmatoryofthe first. 25 Anotherwayoftestingthenatureoftheactisbyinquiringinto thelegalconsequenceslikelytoarisefromtheannulmentofthe secondact.Asubsequentdecision,thoughidenticalineffect toa pre-existingone,mayqualify asanexecutoryactineitheroftwo situations(extractfromPieris,supra):"(a)If it springs from anew inquiry into the facts of the case,or, 1372 30 3 C.L.R. Papaphotisv. E.S.C. Pikis J. (b) if it derives from subsequent legislation, different in contentfromtheoneinforce atthetimeof thefirst act. 5 However, if subsequent legislation simply reproduces the previous law, thesecondactisregardedas confirmatory of the first." ι 10 15 In thiscase,we arenotinessence confrontedwith aconfirma tory decision but with therefusal of theAdministration tore ex amineanexecutory administrative actintheabsenceof facts war ranting re -examination. The pertinent question is whether the materialplaced before therespondents,deriving from thecontent of theletterof 7.10.87andtheletterearlier addressed tothe Min ister of Education on 26.8.87, warranted re -examination of the earlierdecision.Theanswer is plainly inthenegative. Inessence, no new facts were placed before therespondents.Thecontentof thetwo letters amountedinreality toamoralplea for there - em ploymentof theapplicantinthepublic service. Ontheotherhand,nodutyis caston theAdministration toreexamine anexecutory decision upon themerepetition of aparty prejudicially affected thereby. Numerousdecisions of the Greek 20 • Council of State,cited by counsel for therespondents, establish thispropositionbeyond doubt.(SupplementtoCaselaw 1953-60, p. 127 (Summary of relevant Caselaw) -See, also Case 1297/57 and 895/54). Unless thelaw casts apositive duty tore -examine an executory decision of the Administration upongivencircum25 stances,theAdministration is undernoduty tore- examine ade cision onthepetitionof thesubject affected thereby. Iconcludethatthesubject matterof thisrecourseis inamenable tojudicial review and on thataccounttherecourse must be dis missed. And I so order.Noorder as tocosts. 30 ' 1373 Recoursedismissed. Noorderas to costs.