clr/1988/1988_3_1589.pdf

(5)(b), 7(a)and24.A—Theseregulations,weremadeundersection,43 ofthe Telecommunications ServiceLaw, Cap.302,asamendedbyLaws 20/60, 34/62,25/63and54/77—Reg.'10

(5)vests thepower to effectpromotions inthesubjudice posts in the"PersonnelBoard"-r-Ulira viresenabling law as it constitutes unauthorizedsub-delegation of power—SectiorirlOAof Law 25/63does notcoverthiscase—TheStatutoryFunctions(Conferment - of Exercise) Law, 1962does.not save theregulation—Therefore,subju­ dicepromotionsmustbeannulled. • " Ή' ' ' ·*' '» ' Theissueinthesecases'were: • ' """ ' ' ' (a)Whether theCourtcould annulthesubjudicedecision onapointof law,whichtheapplicant had failed toraise,and (bj Whether Reg. 10

(5)(b)of theaforesaid Regulations isvoidforsub­ stantialultravirestheenabling law. Held,annulling thesubjudicedecision:

(1)Intheexerciseof itsrevisionaljurisdiction theCourt may annuladecision on any groundof law, * 1589 Demetriades v. CY.T.A.

(1988)evenifnotraisedbytheapplicant.

(2)(a)TherespondentAuthoritywasdivestedofthepowertopromote itspersonnel,whentheConstitutioncameintoforcein 1960(Constitution, Articles 122and 124).However,Cap.302continued in force, but with suchmodifications aswerenecessary tobringitintoconformity withthe 5 Constitution.Section 10wasrepealedandsubstitutedbyanewsection10 enactedbyLaw25/

1. Duetotheeventsof 1963-64thePublicServiceCommissionceasedto function. Thematterof promotionsinPublicCorporationswasregulated bythePublicCorporations (Regulationof PersonnelMatters)Law, 1970 (61/70).ThepowerwasconferredontheCorporationconcerned .„ (b)Reg.10(b)of theaforesaid regulationsvestedthepowertopromote tothesubjudicepostsinthe"PersonnelBoard",whicheffected thesubjudiceappointments.Thisconstitutesasub-delegationofpower. (c)Thelegislative poweronallsubjectsvestsunderArticle61of the 15 Constitution intheHouseof Representatives.Itisonlywhenclearly the HouseofRepresentativesenablesbyLawanotherAuthoritytomakesubordinatelegislation,thatthelattermayvalidlyexercisesuchpower. Subordinatelegislationhastocomplybothinformalityandinsubstance-extentand contentsofit—withthepowergiventotheAuthoritybythelegislature. 20 Thequestionwhetherornotaparticularprovisionisultraviresdepends ineverycaseonthetrueconstructionoftheenablingpowerconcerned. -(d)Law61/70doesnotexpresslyauthorizesub-delegationofthepower topromotepersonnel.Section 10(A)ofCap.302(addedbyLaw25/63) cannotbeinvokedtojustify thesub-delegation,because: ~<- (a)Itenablessub-delegation onlytomembersof theBoardof theauthority,and (b) It concerns powers vested in the Authority under Cap. 302, as amended.ItisnotapplicabletopowersvestedinitunderLaw61/
2. (e)Law23/62doesnotsavethesaidregulation.Indeed,neitherthefor- 30 malities prescribed by thisLaw werefollowed northeAuthority could thereunderdivestitselfcompletelyoftheexerciseofthepowerconferredon itbyLaw61/
3. Subjudicedecisionsannulled. Noorderastocosts. -c 1590 3 C.L.R. Demetriades v.CY.T.A. Casesreferredto: •"• ' Pikisv.TheRepublic

(1965)3C.L.R;131;. ·. ' . ^ i · ^ i V · ·' st> Geofghiadesv. TheRepublic (I960)yOL.R.V52; M-.X. · ν JV-' η Hajistephanou v.ΓΛβRepublic

(1966)3C.L.R. 289; .i ' '*•;,r .••s. "tut ,'J '«: Λ • •'• * . >.. Christodoulou v.Γ/urRepublic

(1967)3C.L.R. 691; Γ »f .1». v·" /<wi/v. ΓΑ«CyprusTelecommunicationsAuthority

(1970)3C.L.R. 225; [4. • · ,i; t r :(·ι-ι·. '«""'.ν,.Ί1;. ^ . ''•' * •" Γ ' . ' , ' Ί ά ϊ : ,Poutrosv.'TnejCyprusTelecommunications Authority

(1970)3C.L.R. 281; , ,jru. ; J ' · ' 'jt .. ^ihwij Λ • u(»iv·* ·' r;:Ariu/i4cjanJAm>//wr,rv.Cy:7;J4.

(1983)3iC.C.R.-510;^* >'ιr^> •: ;-(• •' r : >;·-Ί> Λ v,o;,~r.J•/.·i. ! J* ι •ii(\nc.*q ')d1 ' . " . ' ' r , ; ", Christodoulou v.Tht>Republic;\R:S.C:C.l;i'i V-"''ΌοίΓκ.ι u :,.'.< J .( f i «»•::. Spyrouend0/ter.rv.ΓΑ«Republic

(1973)3C.L.R.627; ,0 :^ap^/w/>/ion/osa/wiOi/«/:iv:rA£^/ii^/i'c

(1982),3C.L.R:'1037; ζ Ethnikos v.ΛΓ.0.Α.

(1984)3C.L.R. 1150; : v,Z^^iiianaO/Ae>i.v.-rAe7?irptt6/«ri

(1985)3C.L:R:'1372; ' -· * ·". Nl : ,ί.ί,ι.;-!. , κ)ΐ··.- ". ί' .-.:· ii-^. >0J"^'/ '·'.' ' ·ι''Π ·>-' CommissionersofCustoms andExcise v.Cure andDeeteyLtd. [1962] 1 , fl( jQ.B;p. 340;,i - ^i vfc. '..υτ, ι >ir -^ •;f. :n.·U»O iit- ' Cleanthous v.CrTA.

(1974)3C.L.R. 461. Recourses. o.. i * ... *;.-,, ; . ".. · ι '· \< • *•*• Ί»'· ' ^f. '>' ' '- ; -" ,i..Recourses,against the decisibn'of therespondent to promote theinterestedparties,to,thepostsof HeadΒ and Section Leaderin preference and instead of theapplicants. 1591 Demetriadesv.CY.T.A.

(1988)A.S. Angelides, for applicantsinCases Nos.491/87and612/

1. /.Typographos, for applicantinCaseNo. 569/
2. M.Tsangaridesfor E.Efstathiou, for applicant in CaseNo. 629/
3. A.C.Hadjioannou,for respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J. read the following judgment. The appli­ cantsareemployees of theRespondents - TheCyprusTelecom­ municationsAuthority (the"Authority"). Recourses Nos491/87, 612/87and629/87aredirected atthe validity of thepromotionof interestedparty Andreas Philotasto thepostof Προϊστάμενος Υπηρεσίας Β'·(ProistamenosIpiresias B'). Tj>eapplicantinCaseNo.569/87 challenges thevalidity of the , 5 promotion of interested.party Kyriacos Korinos to the post of Τομεαρχης(SectionLeader). Both posts, under Regulation 4 of thePersonnel of TheCy­ prusTelecommunications Authority GeneralRegulations, 1982 ("The Regulations"),areclassified aspostsof SeniorPersonnel. 20 In all four cases acommonpointof law arises and Iconsid­ eredpertinenttodeliver onejudgmentfor allthesecases. Thepointthatposes for determinationis: "The Body that made thesub judice promotions hadno competence, as the Regulations which vested it with such 25 powerareinvalid inthattheyareultravirestheenabling Law." 1592 5 3 C.L.R. '.r 5 ΙΟ 15 20 25 Demetriadesv. CY.T.A. ' , . , i Stylianides J. - · ' ' ..;• - ι In Case No.629/87 this point of law was not raised and in Cases Nos 491/87 and 612/87 it was raised in the address of counsel for theapplicants.·Objection was.taken by learnedcoun­ sel for the,respondentsthatthis point of law cannotbe pursued, as itwas notset outin thegrounds of law onwhich the recourses were based. TriantafyHides, J. as he thenwas, in Costas M.Pikis and the Republic of Cyprus

(1965)3 C.L.R. 131, when objection was raised thatapplicantin thoseproceedings hadnotactually sought toannultheadministrative actiontakenintheground thatitcon­ travened Article 29

(1),hadthis tosay atρ.Ί48:"This, however, cannot prevent an administrative court, such as this Court,fromadministeringjustice in thematteras it deems proper: Applicant has challenged thevalidity of the saidactionunderArticle 146 anditis opentothisCourttoan­ nul such actiononany ground of law, even if notraised by the parties, if in theopinion of the Court such course is properly called for. This is a necessary corollary of the nature of the competenceof anadministrative courtonarecourse for annul­ ment (seeTsatsos ontheRecoursefor AnnulmenttotheCoun­ cil of State2ndeditionpp. 225-226)" Article 146 is thevehicle whereby theCourtinquires intothe· validity of an executory administrative act and it is upon this Court to annul the sub judice act on any ground of law, even if not raised by theparties. The Court,however, before doing so, has toinvite theparties toaddress itonsuch aground of law. An administrative courtis entitledtoexamine ex propriomotu the competenceof the particular organ, thedecision of which is being challenged before it in view of the natureof its revisional jurisdiction - (CleanthisGeorghiadesand TheRepublicofCyprus

(1966)3 C.L.R. 252, at p. 276; Yiangos P. Hjistephanou and The Republic of Cyprus

(1966)3 C.L.R. 289, at p. 300; Annika Christodoulou v. Republic (Public Service Commission)

(1967)3C.L.R. 691, at p. 701). 1593 StylianidesJ. Demetriades v.CY.T.A.

(1988)The aforesaid is acomplete answer totheobjetion of counsel for theRespondents. In thecases underconsideration,counsel for the Respondents hadampleopportunity,bothinhiswritten addressandattheclarifications' stage, toexpound hisviews. Hie basicLaw governing theestablishment, functions, etc,of theAuthorityisCap.302,enactedpriortoIndependence. Section 10

(1)provided that the "Authority shall appoint" a General Manager, a Secretary, and such other officers and servantsasmaybenecessaryfor thepurposesof thisLaw. Ontheestablishment oftheRepublicandthecomingintoforce of the Constitution, theAuthority wasdivested from this power byConstitutional Provisions. Under Article 122 of the Constitution "public service" includesserviceunderthe Authority. APublic ServiceCommission wasestablished by Article 124, which was entrusted under Article 125exclusive power regarding, interalia, appointments, promotions, emplacements, transfers of theofficers and servants of the Respondent Authority as well. Cap. 302continued inforce after theestablishment of theRepublicunderArticle 188oftheConstitution,but withsuchmodifications as were necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution. Section 10was repealed and substituted by a new section 10 bysection 4of Law 25/63. Thenewsection 10

(1)provided that "thereshallbeappointed" a General Manager, a Secretary and such otherofficers and servantsas maybenecessary for thepurposesof thisLaw.This was 1594 3 C.L.R. Demetriades v. CY.T.A. Stylianides J. doneinordertobring thissection inconformity with thelegalor­ dercreated by theConstitutionas aforesaid. 5 10 15 20 25 Due to theevents of 1963-1964 thatCommission ceased to function properly andin 1967 a substitute Public ServiceCommission was set up by thePublic ServiceLaw, 1967 (Law'No. 33/67). Thepower of this substitute Commission was limited tothe civil servants only and, thus, as from July, 1967, there was a vacum ofpower, which wasjudiciallyproclaimed inIoannisIosif v. The Cyprus Telecommunications Authority

(1970)3 C.L.R. 225; Vincent Poutrosv. TheCyprus Telecommunications Au­ thority

(1970)3 C.L.R. 281.The same problem was created for otherPublic Corporations, such as E.A.C. andC.B.C. To remedy this situation, and until thepeople of Cyprus expressed their opinion on the matters, The Public Corporations (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law No.61/70) was enacted. Section 3

(1)conferred on therespective Corpora­ tions ,which includes theAuthority, thepower of appointment, confirmation of appointment, emplacementinthepermanentstaff, promotion,transfer, secondment,retirementandtheexerciseof disciplinary controlonthemembers of theirpersonnel. "Personnel"is defined insection 2to includetheGeneral Man­ ager,except in thecase where by therelevant Law his appoint­ mentis within the competence of theCouncil of Ministers,the Secretary andall otherofficers andservants of theCorporations. Sub-sections

(1),

(2)and

(3)of section 3readasfollows:- 30 "3.-

(1)Τηρουμένωντων διατάξεων τουοικείου νόμου υπάγεταιειςτηναρμοδιότητα εκάστουΟργανισμούοδιο­ ρισμός,ηεπικύρωσιςδιορισμού, ηένταξιςειςτο μόνιμον προσωπικόν,ηπροαγωγή,ημετάθεσις,ηαπόσπασιςκαιη αφυπηρέτησιςτουπροσωπικού τουΟργανισμούωςκαιη επ' αυτούάσκησιςπειθαρχικού ελέγχου, περιλαμβανομέ1595 I StylianidesJ. Demetriades v. CY.T.A.

(1988)νωντηςαπολύσεως ήτης απαλλαγήςαπότωνκαθηκόντων μελών τουπροσωπικού.

(2)Τηρουμένων των διατάξεωντου εδαφίου

(3)οιαδή­ ποτε των εν τω εδαφίω

(1)αναφερομένων αρμοδιοτήτων ασκείται υφ' εκάστου Οργανισμού συμφώνως προς τας 5 διατάξειςτουοικείου νόμου ήοιωνδήποτε δυνάμειαυτού εκδοθέντων ήεκδοθησομένων κανονισμών ήκανόνων, τας ρυθμίζουσαςτο θέμαενσχέσειπρος τοοποίονασκείται η αρμοδιότης.

(3)Οσάκις ο οικείος νόμος δενπεριλαμβάνηδιάταξιν ίο ρυθμίζουσαν ήχορηγούσαν εις τον Οργανισμόν εξουσίαν προςέκδοσιν κανονισμών ήκανόνωνρυθμιζόντωνοιονδή­ ποτε των θεμάτων εν σχέσει προς τα οποία δύναται να ασκηθήυπότου Οργανισμού αρμοδιότηςδυνάμει τουεδα­ φίου

(1),οοικείος νόμος θα ερμηνεύηται και εφαρμόζηται ^ ως εάν περιελαμβάνετο εν αυτώ διάταξις χορηγούσα εις τον Οργανισμόν εξουσίαν προςέκδοσιν κανονισμών ήκα­ νόνων ρυθμιζόντων το θέματούτο." ("3. -

(1)Subject totheprovisions of therelevantspecific Law thereshallbewithin thecompetence of eachAuthority the 20 appointment,confirmation of appointment,emplacement inthe permanent establishment, promotion, transfer, secondment and retirement of thepersonnel of such Authority, as well as the exercise of disciplinary control, including dismissal or termination of theduties of members of thepersonnel. 2s

(2)Subject totheprovisionsof sub-section

(3),any of the competences mentioned insub-section

(1)isexercisedby each Authority in accordance with the provisions of the relevant specific Law or in accordance with any regulations or rules made orto be made under such Law, regulatingthematter in ^ connection with which competence isexercised.

(3)Whenever therelavantspecific Law does notcontain a provisionordaining orgrantingtoanAuthority thecompetence 1596 3 C.L.R. 5 JO J5 2Q 2<- 3Q . Demetriades.v. CY.T.A. Stylianides J. to make regulations or rules regulating and*of.the matters in respect of which competence may be exercised by such Authority in accordance with sub-section

(1),the said Law will i be.interpreted and applied as if there was included therein a provision grantingtotheAuthoritycompetencefor themaking ofregulationsorrulesregulating thematter." ... TheAuthority wasempowered by section 43of thebasicLaw, Cap. 302,withtheapprovalof theGovernor (after Independence Council of Ministers) tomakeregulations, not inconsistent·with theprovisionsoftheLaw,-oranyotherLawin force for thetime being, to bepublished in.the Gazette, "for the better carrying of thisLawintoeffect". •. •' ' • ' ,The Authority made the General Staff Regulations on 27th July, 1977,whichprovided, interalia,for theclassification ofthe personnel, the terms and conditions of appointment, permanent emplacements,promotion, transfer, disciplinary proceedings and dismissals.They werenotplaced before theCouncilof Ministers for approval and they were notpublished in the Official Gazette of theRepublic,though they werepersistently applied until 26th July, 1982. In,the meantime inArsalides and Another v.CYTA

(1983)3 C.L.R. 510 their validity was contested on the ground that they wereultraviresastothemodeinwhich they hadbeen made-no approval by the Council of Ministers and no publication in the Gazette.Asaresultthey wereapproved by theCouncilof Ministers and were,'ultimately, published in t the Official Gazette on 26th July, 1982,under Notification No.

1. These arethe Regulations under whichthe subjudicepromotions were effected and their substantive validity is now challenged.. . - <• • *· TheRegulations weremade under section 43of the Telecom-' munications ServiceLaw,Cap.302,asamendedbyLaws20/60, 34/62,25/63,54/
2. · . 1597 Stylianides J. Demetriadesv.CY.T.A.

(1988)Therelevant Regulations for thesecasesare 10

(5)(b),

(7)(a) and 24.A. APersonnelBoard(ΣυμβούλιονΠροσωπικού),consistingof threeofficers of thehighestorseniorpersonnel,nominatedbythe General Manager,andthree employees,nominatedby theTrade 5 Union andappointedby theGeneralManager,chairedby oneof theofficers nominated by theGeneralManager,is set up under Regulation 24.A.1. Thedecisionof thisBoardis subjecttocon­ firmation by theGeneralManager,who,before theconfirmation mayrefer backtotheBoardfor re-examinationanydecision.De- IQ cisions notconfirmed by theGeneralManagerarereferredforde­ terminationbytheBoardof theAuthority. Promotions aregoverned by Regulation 10 The promotions of thehighestpersonnelaremadeby theBoardof theAuthority. By Regulation 10

(5)promotions of all thepersonnel of the 15 Authority,except thehighest personnelwhichincludesonlythe Head of a Department and the Deputy Head of Department (Διευθυντής και Υποδιευθυντής),are madeby the Personnel Board. Thesubjudicepromotionsweremadeby thisPersonnelBoard 20 andwereconfirmed by theGeneralManager.TheAuthority did nottakeanypartinthedecisionmakingprocess. It is well settled thatwhen any decision is taken onRegula­ tions whichare ultravirestheenablingLaw, suchdecisionhasto be annulled and to be declared null andvoid and of noeffect 25 whatsoever-(MiltiadesChristodoulouandTheRepublic(Colle­ ctorof CustomsNicosia) 1R.S.CC.1). This principle was repeatedly enunciatedandapplied by this Courtinanumberof caseseversince-(SavvasChr.Spyrou and Othersv.Republic(Licensing Authority)

(1973)3C.L.R. 627; 30 PapaxenophontosandOthers v. Republic

(1982)3C.L.R. 1037; Ethnikosv. K.OA.

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1150; Lefkatisand Others 1598 3C.L.R. Demetriades v.CY.T.A. StyManides,J. v.tfepuWic

(1985)3C.L.R. 1372). . , . ( ., 5 Delegateorsubordinatelegislationmaybechallengedfor'substantiye.ultravires,thatis,onthegroundthatitgoesbeyondthe powersgrantedbythelegislature -(Commissioners ofCustoms andExcisev.CureandDeeleyLtd., [1962] 1 Q.B.D.340). ·',. ThelegislativepoweronallsubjectsvestsunderArticle61 of thetConstitutionintheHouseofRepresentatives.Itisonlywhen clearlytheHouseofRepresentativesenablesbyLawanotherAuthoritytomakesubordinatelegislation,thatthelattermayvalidly 10 exercisesuchpower.Subordinatelegislationhastocomplyboth '' informality andinsubstance-extentandcontentsofit-withthe powergiventotheAuthoritybythelegislature. Thequestionwhetherornotaparticularprovisionisultravires depends in every case on the true construction of theenabling 15 powerconcerned. 20 25 30 ThepowertopromoteemployeesontheAuthorityvested from theestablishmentoftheRepublicinthePublicServiceCommission.Itisonly byLaw 61/70that suchpowerwasconferred on theAuthority.ThisLaw provided thatthepower shallbeexercisedbytheAuthorityinconformity andunderRegulationstobe made either under that Law or under therelevant Law, in the presentcaseCap. 302. The statutory power must be exercised only by a Body in whichithasbeenconfided,unlesssub-delegationofthepower.is authorized byexpresswordsornecessaryimplication -(Halsbury'sLawsofEngland,4thEdition,Volume 1,paragraph32). Eventhen,theBody,inwhichpowerisvested,cannotdivest itself bysub-delegation of allthepower,unlesstheLawsoprovides. In general adelegation of powerdoes not imply parting withauthority. . • UnderCap.302theAuthority had,nopowertoappoint,pro1599 Stylianides J. Demetriades v.CY.T.A,

(1988)mote,etc.,after Independence. Section 10A. , which was added by section 4 of Law 25/63, enabled the Authority to transfer to any of its members (of the Board of theAuthority) theexerciseof anyof itsfunctions oradministrative powers,by virtueofthe Law. 5 Learnedcounselfor theRespondents submitted thatinCleopatra Cleanthous v. The Cyprus Telecommunications Authority

(1974)3 C.L.R., 461,it was held that the disciplinary matters were not within thecompetence ofthe Board of the Respondent, buttheGeneralManager, undertheInternal Rulesof theAuthori- io ty. Ihavegone through theDecision in thatcase.Neither the formal,northesubstantive validityofthoseInternal Ruleswerecontested, argued, or decided by theCourt. Thereafter, in Arsalides case (supra), the so called Internal Rules were declared invalid 15 because theexerciseof theRulemakingpowerwasformally defective. Section 10.A ,authorizing thedelegation of theexerciseof the functions and administrative powerof theAuthority, imposes two limitations:- 20 (a)Thedelegation ispermissibleonly tomembersoftheAuthority,that ismembersof theBoard oftheAuthority, and not toofficers orsubordinates;and (b) Only power and functions vested in the Authority, in virtueofLaw Cap.302 asamended,may bedelegated. 25 Law 61/70,whichconferred ontheAuthority thepowertoappoint, promote, etc., does not authorize it todelegate this power and,further, thedelegation of suchpowerisnotwithin theambit of section 10.A ofLaw 25/63. It has to be noted that Laws governing other public corpora1600 30 3C.L.R. 5 10 Demetriadesv.CY.T.A. StylianidesJ. tions empower suchcorporationswiththediscretion todelegate powertosub-committee -(seesection 5

(6)ofTheCyprusTourismOrganization Law, 1969(Law No.54/69) as amended by section2ofLaw48/78andsection2oftheLaw16/85,whichrepealedandsubstituted thepreviousprovisions.See,also,section 8ofTheCyprusPortsAuthorityLaw,1973(LawNo.38/73)). Itwas,further, submittedbycounselfortheRespondentsthat theRegulations could beconsidered valid inview oftheprovisionsof the Statutory Functions(Conferment ofExercise)Law, 1962(LawNo. 23/62). Therearetwoflaws in this submission:Theformalities prescribed by thisLaw werenotfollowed andthe Authority could notdivestitselfcompletelyoftheexerciseofthepowerconferred onitbyLaw 61/70.Theprovisionsof section

(3)and

(4)ofthe 15 Lawmilitateagainstthesubmissionofcounsel. 20 Inview of the foregoing, Regulations 10

(5)(b),

(7)(a)and 24.A are beyondthescopeof theenabling Law.They areultra vires.ThePersonnelBoard,whichwassetupundertheseRegulations,wasaBodynotintendedinLawandatanyrateithadno competencetomakethesubjudicepromotions. Astheserecourses succeedonthequestionresolved above,I neednotembarkonanyoftheparticulargroundsadvancedbythe applicantsinsupportoftheirrespectivecase. Therecoursessucceed. 25 Thesubjudicepromotionsaredeclared nullandvoidandof noeffect whatsoeverunderArticle 146.4(b)oftheConstitution. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Subjudicepromotionsannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1601