(1988)1988July 18 [SAWIDES,I I INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ARCHIGOS KOMMATOS DIKEOSINIS,AS REPRESENTATIVE OFSELF-EMPLOYEDMEMBERSOFHISPARTY, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGHTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OFTHEREPUBLICANDOTHERS, Respondents. (CaseNo.969185). Recoursefor annulment—Summarydismissal, when"primafaciefrivolous"— Constitution,Art134.2—OnlytheFullBenchofthisCourtcanexercised suchapower. Inthelightoftheaforesaid principleandasthiscasewasdealt withby. a single Judge, the Court didnotsummarily dismiss therecourse,but examined,exproprio motu,itsmeritsand,havingconcluded thatitwas filed outoftime,dismissedit. 5 Recoursedismissed. Onehalfof thecoststobepaidbyapplicant. Application. 10 Application by Counsel for respondents for the dismissal of the recourse as manifestly unfounded. Applicant appeared in person. D. Papadopoulou (Mrs.), for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. (Note:ThisisanEnglishtranslationofthejudgmentinGreekappearingatpp. 14901495ante). 1496 15 3 C.L.R. Κomnia Dikebsinis v. Republic SAVVIDES J. read the folowing judgment. The applicant in his capacity as leader of the "Justice Party" by his present re course challenges a numberof alleged administrative acts andhis prayer reads as follows: 5 lO 15 2Q (a)A declaration of the'Court thattheadministrative actsand/ or decisions of the respondents whereby the criminal prosecu tionsof each oneof themembers of theparty and their obligation topay contributionsover and above theiractualincomeas well as the additional fee as self-empoyed persons as from 4.10.82-8384-85 without being afforded therighttodeclare their incomein accordancewith thelaw is null and void, unconstitutionalandof nolegal effect. (b)A declaration of theCourtdeclaring as null andvoid and/or unconstitutional the imposition of any additional fee for thereason thatthemembers of theparty never refused oromitted topay' their contributions either personally or through the applicant but the respondents were refusing tocollect thecontributions onthe basisof theirreal income.On 31.3.84 thecontributions were sent by theapplicant by postal order for certain members insettlement of their contributions for the quarter 4.10.82 till 4.1.83. There spondents collected the amount as payment on account and the same was repeated on the following quarter when the applicant paid the contributions in cash. The respondents refused toissue receipts infull settlement and themembers of theparty as aresult stopped paying contributionsand they were prosecuted before the Courts. (c)A declaration or order directing therespondents to collect immediately and without any further delay thearrears of contribu tions of themembers of theparty onthebasisof theirreal income and without any'additional fee for thedelay for which thefull re sponsibility lieson therespondents for political reasons. (d) A declaration of theCourtdirecting therespondents tore 1 spect the oral and/or written agreements with the applicant and their replies from 10.4.84 till 20.6.85, as on 30.12.82 applica1497 Savvides J. Κomnia Dikeosinis v. Republic
(1988)tionswere filed onforms of theparty showing thereal incomeof its members. (
- e)A declaration and/ordecision directing thearrest andim prisonmentof therespondentsfor disobedience tothedecision of the FullBenchof the Supreme Courtdated25.6.1982anddecep- 5 tionof theCourt,till theircompliancewith such decision. (
- f)An orderof the Courtdirecting therespondents tocomply with thedecision of the Supreme Court dated 25.6.1982 in fa vour of theself-employed persons. (g)A declaration of the Courtthatregulations 48/82/73/80/20/ 3,paragraph 2 andtheConstitution of the Republichave applica tion for themembers of theparty due to a delayed previous re course as well as otherregulations. (h)A declaration of the Courtthattherespondentsarenotenti tled and should discontinue to demand double contributions, additional fee andcontributiontothedefence fund which havebeen paid. 10 15 Counsel for respondents filed an application for the dismissal of therecourse as manifestly unfounded. Counsel for respondents in arguing the application submitted 20 that applicant is notchallenging specific administrative acts and that in any event thealleged complaints refer toacts or decisions which were taken and in fact materialized a long time before he filed therecourse andled totheinitiation of criminal proceedings for thecollection of thecontributions and the additional fee due 25 andin any event they areoutof time.All otherprayers areinre spect of remedies which are not within thejurisdiction of this Court as they concern criminal prosecutions and declarations in respect of acts for which due tolapse of time,theapplicantand the persons on;whose behalf he is alleged to act, lost any legiti- 30 mateinterest. 1498 3 C.L.R. Komma Dikeosinis ν: Republic Savvides J. The'applicant-by his addfess"after a long exposition of the his tory as tothesteps taken by himin thepast against theinstitution of criminal proceedings of members of his party for not'paying theircontributions,submitted thatall thedecisions of therespons , dens were taken as aresult of theirrefusal tocollect thecontributions in full settlement and were persisting on the additional fee, theimposition of which is unconstitutional.Hefurther invited the Court toreverse any decision of.the Full Bench as tothe liability for payment of additional fees and to rule that the imposition of J-Q any additional fee for thenon-paymentof contributionsis wrong andunconstitutional. 15 In answer to a question put by the Courtthe applicant agreed that in the present case he is not contesting the amounts of the contributions and submitted that in fact such contributions were tenderedtotherespondents. What hedisputes is theimposition of theadditional fee for thenon-paymentof thecontributions. A perusal of thecontentsof theremedies prayed for by theap plicant shows clearly confusion as towhat are the administrative acts which theapplicantis challenging. 20 2<r 30 Theapplicant by this recourse does notchallenge any specific administrative acts or decisions but he complains in abstracto abouttherefusal of therespondents toacceptpayment of thecon tributions only, without the additional fee, in cases, in most of which criminal prosecutions had been instituted and most of the complainants had been convicted for nonpayment of thecontri butions andtheadditional fee. ..· The remedies sought by applicant concerning the suspension ordiscontinuanceof criminal proceedings are wholly outside the review powers of the Supreme Court under Article 146 of the Constitution. It is also abundantly clear from the contents of the prayers sought andalso from thearguments advanced thattheacts sought tobe challenged areacts inrespect of which theperiod of 75 days 1499 Savvides J. Κomnia Dikeosinis v. Republic
(1988)from theircommunicationtothepersonsconcernedhave elapsed and,therefore,inany event theycouldnothave been challenged by thisrecourse. Theobject of arecourse underArticle 146.3 of the Constitu tionis toenableapersontochallengeaspecific administrativeact withintheperiodof 75 days. Inthepresentcasenotwithstanding thefact thatnospecific administrativeactischallenged thegistof the complaint of the applicant refers to matters which in any eventareoutsidethetimelimitsof Article 146.3 of the Constitu tion. 10 Ifinallyconclude thaton thematerial before mearid having heardwhat was said oh behalf of theparties thisrecourseisen tirely unfounded andshould bedismissed. Article 134.2 of theConstitution provides asfollows: "134.2When arecourseappearstobeprimafaciefrivolous 15 theCourtmay,after hearingargumentsby oronbehalf of theparties concerned,unanimouslydismiss suchrecourse withoutapublic hearingif satisfied thatsuchrecourseisin fact frivolous." Bearing inmindthewording of such Article thatthedecision 2 n todismissarecourse summarily should beunanimously taken, I consider thatsuchpower couldonly beexercised when acase is• dealt with by theFull Bench.This is thereason thatIhave not dismissed therecourse summarily onmy own motionandhave dealtwith themeritsof suchrecoursewhich inthe circumstances isfrivolous andmanifestly unfounded. 25 Forall theabovereasons therespondentssucceed intheir ap plication andtherecourseis herebydismissed.Concerning costs, in the circumstances, I award costs in.favour of respondents againsttheapplicanttotheextentof halfof theircosts. . 30 Recoursedismissed. Orderfor costs asabove. 1500