3 C.L.R. ... . ; 1988 July 14 . ^ ltt , ; - . [A.LOIZOU, J.] » ί · . ι ,rt- :i IN T H E MATTER O F ARTCCI£ 146O F T H E CONSTITUTION» . ' " - ." • j , . τ 11 • • '» . ι ·· STEUOSPITSILLIDES,· u >v.· . . .' ' ;Ό •' τ ' (ι '•*.' *- • . *• 'Applicant, T H E C Y P R U ST O U R I S M O R G A N I S A T I O N V Respondent. , Γί ' ;. *, I f f , -r. . - · ''''.<<,, (Case No. 616/84). et Public Corporations—Cyprus Toiirism Organization—The Cyprus Tourism '•'Organization*Law}'1978 (Section'48178)) sections 5
(5)-and 5(6f-Subcommittees appointed by theAdministrative Board^Whether Director of the Organizationentitledtovoteinsuch committees—Questiondetermined f inthenegative, y ''. · ι . "*: • ." . 10 •» Public Corporations—Cyprus Tourism Organization—The Cyprus Tourism OrganizationLaw, 1978, section5
(5)and 5
(6)—Subcommitteesappointed by theBoards-Quorum—Absence ofaspecific provision-general princi ple is thatquorumis fialfits membersplus one--Thereforethequorumofa ve " *fi member committeeisfour—The Director of the Organization, who has no vote,is not'countedfor the purpose offormingia quorum.\ ^. -" r. • • - . , i j ** « ' ' »'' ·: J ' • • ;· ; 'ί ' Λ . » * Collective organs—Quorum—Absence of specific provision—Half its mem-,· ι bers plus one. --, _ -,; , V I , .- t * , · - ,-.-. , ; r;\r·' 15 T h e legal principles emanating from this c a s esufficiently appear from the hereinabove headnote. . ., .r> . Sub judice promotionsannulled. v , .No order as tocosts. ,· ,. ;..*„ ι 1429 Pitsillides v. C.T.O.
(1988)Casesreferredto: Maratheftisv. TheRepublic
(1965)3CLJR.576. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedparty tothepostofSeniorTouristOfficer inpreference 5 andinsteadoftheapplicant. AS. Angelides, fortheapplicant, A. Dikigoropoulos,for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOU P.read the followingjudgment. By thepresent ^Q recoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationoftheCourtthatthedecisionof therespondent Organization topromotetheinterested partiestothepostofSeniorTouristOfficer, insteadoftheapplicantisnullandvoidandofnolegaleffect whatsoever. Thefacts sofarasrelevanttotheissuesinthiscaseareasfol- 15 lows: Inresponsetotherelevant advertisementforthepostwhichis according tothe scheme of serviceafirst entry and promotion post,thirtyfivecandidatesappliedincludingtenmembersofthe staffoftherespondentOrganization.Eighteencandidateswerein- 20 terviewedincludingtheaforesaid tenmembersofthestaff,certain of whom however did not satisfy all the requirements of the Schemeof Service but wereinvitedas it hadbeen agreedwith theirTradeUnion.Theapplicantwasalsointerviewed. Theinterviews were carriedout bytheSelection Committee 25 whichwasespecially setupfor thepurposebyvirtueof section 5
(6)oftheCyprusTouristOrganization Law 1969(LawNo.54 of 1969),hereinafter tobereferred toastheLaw,andwhichcon1430 ,3 C.L.R. Pitsillides.v. C.T.O., : A. Loizou P. .sistedof six.persons including^theDirectorGeneralof therespon 1 T Ί lU dentOrganization. ν υι ' ι *". -wn!)ii- , -. • : i' 'L x' v id.At.jts meeting.of the-25th.September 1984 theSelectionCom mitteeBoard-having considered thematerial before iton the best r 5 ^candidates;their qualifications, experience andknowledge, their administrative andorganizing ability?their>personality,;responsibility initiative etcetera,as ascertained during theinterviews and having studied·theconfidential reports'!of those who were.serving in therespondentOrganization considered thatA. Charalambides, IQ and'Pi^Vanezis were onithe,whole the best.'and decidedto'pro^ ι motethemtothepost inquestion as frorivthe 22nd October4984. .··...As a resulMhe-applicantfiledthepresentrecourse onthe 13th November^1984.-.,. Μ ,·>-Τ*.:!-!Λ· Λ ?ί· >.*j.il<r,tw-rt~· '; , . i , , v.. 15 i 7 20 <y 25 Ιί 30 At therequest of the parties thecase was on the7thJune 1985 adjourned sinediepending the.determiriationofia question onthe cpnstitutionalityuof those provisions of theLaw.empowering the respondent'Organizationito appoint-andpromoteiitsown employtees in Revisional Jurisdiction-Appeal No:'665.rjThis.case;fhowever, was.once again puton'the>triallist on;.thef27th:Februafy.l988 ontheapplication of counsel for theapplicant,'.,τ,τ/,0 ι •·.' - τ <' ·<: . .- '. f • or!/' ίϋ·.:.:*"* Ί.·Γ/ο'·'τ--.•'<ι '.irh-si r •"• *>-*V3VV^! vi.;It,was argued^n behalf^ofthe;applicant thattheactive partici pation of theDirectorGeneralofitherespondentiOrganization in the Selection Committeewas wrong and illegal in thatin accor dance;withisection:5
(5).and,
(6):of'th'e'Law, as amended;by,'sectipn2 of LawANo.·48;of 1978^he Director.Generalhasmovoting powers^when participatingin.the meetings of the:selectionCommiteebut is only theretoassist. ;iu Furthermoreiit was contended?that.theSelection-Committee when considering the matter·at.hand and when reaching the:sub judice decision was-improperlyiconstituted as'no-proper quorum could be formed.by <fte;participation of only,threebf itsfivemem^bers at^.deliberations: According.to theiapplicantttheparticipa tion o£four members.wasjnecessary in order to forma-quorum 1431 A. Loizou P. Pitsillides v. C.T.O.
(1988)andthepresenceof theDirectorGeneral asafourth person,not beingavotingmembercouldnotformthenecessaryquorum. IconsiderthattheactiveparticipationoftheDirectorGeneral byvoting was contrary tothe express provisions of the Law. From aperusal of theprovisions of section 5 of theLaw, it is 5 clearthattheDirectorGeneralisnotamemberoftheAdministrativeBoardbutinaccordancewithsub-section
(5)thereof,heparticipatesatthemeetingsoftheBoardwithoutavote. Sub-section
(6)thereof asamended byLaw No.48of 1978, providesinteraliaasfollows: "TheAdministrativeBoardmaydelegatepartofitscompetenciestoCommitteesofitsmembersinwhichtheDirectorGeneral ....mayparticipate." HadtheintentionofthelegislatorbeenfortheDirector-Generaltohavevotingpowerwhenparticipatinginanysub-commit- 15 tee,therewouldhaveeitherbeenanexpressprovision tothat effect, or it would have provided for the setting up of such committeesmadeupofmembersof theBoardandincludingthe Director-General.Inthisinstance,however,theLawmerelyallows-theparticipationoftheDirector-Generalwhocancertainly 20 not assumeanymorepowersthanheisalready givenexpressly bytheLawitselfandinparticularsections5
(5)and6,thereof. Consequently, not having any voting power, the Director Generalwasnotentitledtojoininformingthenecessaryquorum, asthepersonsforming aquorumaresinequanontotheproceed- 25 ings. Inthepresent instancetherefore thesubjudicedecision was reached byonly three out of thefivemembersof the Selection Committeewhodidnotconstituteaquorumasintheabsenceof specificprovisionintherelevantLaw,thegeneralruleappliesi.e. 30 thatsuchquorumishalfthemembersofthecollectiveorgan,plus oneandin thiscasesuchnumbermustnecessarilybefour. (See 1432 10 3 C.L.R. Pilsillides v.C.T.O. A.Loizou P. ConclusionsoftheCaseLawof theGreek Council of State19291959;also Maratheftis v. The Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 576 at 581-582.) 5 Ifind therefore thatthesubjudicedecision mustbeannulledas contrary tolaw andas havingbeenreached by a wronglyconstituted organ. In view of this, I need not proceed to examine the caseon itsmerits soasnottoprejudge theissue. For the reasons stated above, this recourse succeeds and the subjudicedecision ishereby annulled. 10 In the circumstances therefore there will be no order as to costs. Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderastocosts. 1433