(1988)1988August31 [A.LOIZOU, P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTTCLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION NIOVIPAPAIOANNOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS.THROUGH 1.THEDIRECTOROFELEMENTARYEDUCATION, 2.THEPERMANENTUNDER SECRETARYOFTHEMINISTRYOF EDUCATION, Respondents. (CaseNo.601186). Acts ordecisionsinthesense ofArticle146.1—EducationalOfficers—"Move" from oneschool toanother, not involving changeofstatus or residence— An internalmeasure ofadministration—Thereforeitisoutsidetheambitof Article 146.1. Words andphrases: "Appropriate authority" insection 2 of theEducational ServiceLaw, 1969 (Law1011969). 5 The facts of this case sufficiently appearfromthejudgment of the Court Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. 10 Casesreferredto: Yiallourouv.The Republic
(1976)3CLJfc.214; Karapatalav.TheRepublic
(1982)3CLJR.88; Nissiotou v. The Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.
- 1718 3 C.L'.R. Papaioannouv.Republic Recourse. r Recourse against thedecision of the respondents,to,transfer applicantfromLycavitosElementary SchooltoPhaneromeniElementary School. , v . ",AS: AnselideSy for theapplicant. P. Clerides, for therespondents. ' Γ ι * 1 . - ι; ϋ, r '.ι .-Vi •'. < • -1 Cur.adv. vult. .. A. LOIZOUP.read thefollowingjudgment. By thepresent recoursetheapphcantchallenges thevalidity of: i r '.-·,.· _• " ' · \ < : .,.ti r . j . ; · • ·7'-Γ0 • * ' , · V ji- ..• ^ Γ * ' . < . - ! ' ι • ·t * h 1-t '·,"*p. , ι · 1·4| f *- .· ,"1tt ' •· ' . "'(a)thedecision of therespondenttotransferrer from theLy cavitos Elementary School,to the Phaneromeni Elementary School/and , , (b) the decision ofthe respondent todismiss her objection against thesaidtransfer. . .TheapplicantwhoisaHeadmistress inElementaryEducation .was transferred from theLycavitosElementary Schoolwhereshe had'been serving during theschool year 1985-1986tothe Pha* v. , ' η .,, — / V ' * c' rt : ' " · . ·' '·• ~ * neromeniElementarySchoolasfrom the19thSeptember
- ι '••r* l·" " ·, ..'.• w' Η f r .-..'-'rot, -u: ."/>• ' . ·' .*' ». - °'The applicant objected to'the'said transfer or*"move (μΐτακίγησις)" by.letter datedthe.lOth.Sep^tember
- On the 18m September"1986.she,was informed by letterof the Director of Elementary Educationthathertransfer was madefor her.own benefit1 as well as that of the school. As"a resulfsKe filed the presentrecourse. •' •· * • .-, TJJ ' f . •. - - • • ι * .-a -t- ι**- ι " " ; · - * ι > ' . ; r . ^ - j ,, , i* ; r " - , , . - · ' • *j . • ι J '" * " " ~ Before embarking"on thegrounds of law as argued on behalf of theapplicant ImustconsiderfirstthepreHminary objections putforward onbehalf of therespondenttotheeffepi thatthe'subjudice'decision isan'internalmeasureof tHe administrationandis 1719 A. Loizou P. Papaioannouv.Republic
(1988)thusnotamenabletoreview.SeeYiallourouv.Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 214 at p. 220-221; Karapataki v. Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 88 atp. 94;Nissiotou v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 1335 atp.
- Iconsiderthatsuchtransfer is indeedaninternalmeasureasit 5 didnotentailanychangeintheapplicant'sstatusorherplaceof residencebutitwas merelya"μετακίνηση"(move)asdefined by s.2of thePublicEducationalServiceLaw 1969,(Law No. 10of 1969) as amendedby s. 2of Law No.4of 1985,thatis aposting withinthesameplaceof workwhich was wellwithinthediscre- 10 tionarypowers of therespondent.Therecoursetherefore fails. Itwas alsoputforward onbehalf of therespondentthatthede cision tomove theapplicantlost its executory characterhaving merged inthedecisionof therespondentdisposingof her objec tion.Thisis correctbutas theapplicantchallenges alsothedeci- 15 sionof therespondentdismissingherobjection,thisargumentis withoutsubstance. In spite of theresult arrived atIstill feel thatIought todeal withonefurther issueraised inthis recourse. Itwas argued onbehalf of theapplicantthatthoughtheorigi- 20 naldecisionregarding hertransfer was takenby theMinisterof Education as theappropriateauthority, nevertheless shewas in formed of theoutcomeof herobjection by theDirectorof Ele mentaryEducationwhointhecircumstanceshadnocompetence. Tobegin with,from theaforesaid letterof theDirectorofEle- 25 mentaryEducationof the 18thSeptember 1986itdoesnotappear whetherheactually disposed ofherobjection orwhetherhe was merely informing herof itsoutcome.Neverthelessfromreading thedefinition of "appropriateauthority"and"Minister"insection 2of Law No. 10of 19691 amleadtotheconclusionthattheDi- 30 rectorofElementaryEducationdoesfall within thedefinition of "appropriate authority".The matterwas also considered inthe case of Republicv. Nissiotou(supra) where thefollowing was 1720 3 C.L.R. Papaioannou v. Republic A. LoizouP. stated atp.
- 5 JO 15 "Moreover, having in mind thedefinitions of "appropriate 1 authority ('αρμοδίααρχή')and of 'Minister' (Υπουργός ) in section 2 of the Public Educational Service Law, 1969 Law 10/69), which have tobe read together, we areof theopinion that for thepurposes of Law 10/69 the 'appropriate authority' is theMinisterof Education,acting usually through theDirec tor-General of theMinistry of Education,andthatthenotions of Minister of Education andMinistry of Education have tobe understood as including,also,every Departmentof suchMin istry and,consequently, as including, too,every Head of De partment intheMinistry of Education." For thereasons stated above this recourse fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to • costs. Recourse dismissed. Noorderas tocosts. 1721