(1988)1988September 22 [HADJITSANGARIS,J.] INTHE MATTER O F ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION PARASKEVAS ANASTASSIOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYRPUS, THROUGH 1.THE MINISTER O F LABOUR AND SOCIAL INSURANCE, 2. THE DIRECTOR O F SOCIAL INSURANCE, Respondents. (Case No. 204/87). Acts or decisions in the sense of Article 146.1 of the Constitution—Refusal to honour cheques based on regulation providing that theright of payment is extinguished, if a cheque is notpresented for payment within six months of Usissue—Not justiciable under Art. 146.1 The facts ofthis case appear sufficiently from theheadnote hereinabove. Having adopted Michael v. TheRepublic
(1988)3 CX.R. 9 2 1 ,the Court dismissed therecourse. 5 Recourse dismissed. No order asto costs. Cases referred to: jI Michael v. TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R. 921. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of therespondents whereby they failed toallow payment to applicant of a number of cheques. I 1780 3 C.L.R. Anastassiou v.Republic M.Papapetrou,fortheapplicant. . ., , ; A. Vassiliades, fortherespondents. Cur. adv. vult. HADJITSANQARIS J,read thefollowing judgment.Bythis 5 recoursetheapplicantpraysforadeclarationoftheCourtthatthe decision of the respondents which is contained in lettersdated 9.2.87and 12.2.87addressedtotheapplicantbyvirtueofwhich therespondentsfailed toallowpaymenttotheapplicantofanumberof.chequeswhichappearinschedule"A"attachedtothispeti10 tion isnulland void and of no,effect whatsoever. Thegrounds uponwhichtherecourseisbasedare:
(1)Thatthedecisionisillegalandcontrarytotheprovisionsof Law41/80. . -,, ' -. ·, .
(2)Thatthedecisionwastakeninexcessofpower.v
(3)Thatitdoesnotaccordwiththefacts.
(4)That it wastaken in abuseofdiscretionary powerifsuch discretionarypowerexists. ,
(5)Thatthedecisionwasnotdulyreasoned. Therespondentsdenyalltheaboveallegationsandinanswer allegethat theonly substantial complaintof theapplicantisthat rule4
(2)oftheRegulations243/80whichwerepublishedinthe 3rdscheduleoftheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublicdated29.8.80 No. 1285areultraviresofLaw-41/80.Thesaid Rule4
(2)providesaperiodof6monthsduringwhichchequesshouldbepay2<r ableotherwisetherighttopaymentisextinguished. Theymaintainthatthesaidrulesareperfectly legal. 20 Thefacts ofthecaseareveryshortanditiscommonground thattheapplicantisinpossession of acertain numberofSocial 1781 Hadjitsangaris J. Anastassiou v.Republic
(1988)Insurancechequeswhich appearin schedule "A"ofthepetition. Thesechequesrepresent small sumsof money and wereissued by therespondents to certain beneficiaries of Social Insurance. Theapplicantendorsed themandpresentedthemforpayment after6monthsfromthedateofissueofsuchcheques.Therespon- 5 dentsfailed topaythesaidchequesandtheapplicantthroughhis advocate requested their payment by virtue of letters dated 16.1.87 and 26.1.87. The respondents by their letters dated 9.2.87 and 12.2.87 refused payment alleging that the 6month timelimitprovided byRule4
(2)hadpassedandthereforeappli- ,( cant'srighttopaymenthasbeenlost. ThecasehasbeenmainlyarguedonthequestionwhetherRule 4
(2)isultraviresornotbutIhavehadinthemeantimethebenefit of reading a recent decision of by brother A. Loizou P.dated 7.5.88in CaseNo. 148/86 between Andreas E.Michaelv.The . Republic
(1988)3C.L.R.921.Thiscaseraised asapreliminary issue the question whether a claim for payment in respect of chequespresentedafter the6monthperiod.(Rule4
(2))uponarefusal oftheadministrationofsuchpaymentiswithinthejurisdiction ofthiscourt orof acivilcourthavingjurisdiction inmone- 2 taryclaims. Thisquestionhasnotbeenraisedintheseproceedings butthe factsofthetwocasesarevirtuallyidentical andIfeel thatsince thisquestionresolvesthewholecaseastouchingonthejurisdictionof theCourtIshoulddealwith itonmyownmotion before * goingonthemerits. TheviewtakenbyA.LoizouP.wasthattherefusal oftheadministration toallowpayment intheabovecircumstances isnot anadministrativeactwithintheambitofarticle 146
(1)oftheConsotution butsimplyreferstoamonetarydisputewithinthejurisdictionoftheCivilcourts.Inparticularhehadthistosayatpages 925-926discussingthegeneralprincipleinvolvedinthelightof thecaselaw. "Itwasheldasearly as 1962(Achilleas HjiKyriakou and 1782 J 3 C.L.R. *( ' Γ · - \u" Anastassiou v. Republic ."*"'. . " '"' '• *•' ' " · Hadjitsangaris J. ·'-· J U ' V J ·**-' Theologia HjiAposiolou, 3 R.S.C.C. 89) thatJan.act or deci sion^in the,sense of paragraph l p f Artictel46;iSjan actorde, cision irijthedomain only-of public-law and notan.actordeci,,,sion,of a public officer in the domain of private,law.;-, ,- (ΐ 5 l( 1 0 ., //Ever after; this principle was reiterated in a number of-cases (Valanav:Republic^ R.S.C.C. 9\?Asprofias\. The Repub lic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 366, Republic v.'MDM. Estate Develop ments Ltd. ,
(1982)-3 C.L.R. 642, Charalambides, v. The Re, public
(1982)' ( 3,C.L.R :i 4b3, Chimtis v. The Republic
(1982)" 3 C.L.R.,540,Tekkis}& { Another,v,Jhe Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 6^0; .and'most,recently,by the Full Benchan thecase of ' Galanosy. c!sC.Q984) 3 C.UR. 742). " j 15 ' K" 20 " " ·Ϊ ι·,ι , •:· Ί Ο '• ·. ,t * ΐ,1 ί . •* - Μ ·' .":' , ;Of course it is 'primarily the nature and character,of4a par. ..ticular act or decision which determines-whether or hot .such .i·-^ c t P r decision,comes-within-the scope of paragraph' 1 qffArticle 146 of the Constitution,-,The same organ may.be actingei : ther in the domain of private law or,in the domain of public ,. law dependingonthe nature of itSiaction -' (The Greek Regis·J trar of[the Co-operative Societies,y. !)licos_Nicolaides
(1965)3 ' C.L.R. 164)." p i , r f- ;t f | , r ^ - j , j f .i f .ρ ,ιϊ. ,L . ν J .it) He then referred to the position in Greece on this point citing from Tsatsos Administration and Law, 1979 ed., at pages 263 to 265.and from the decision of the Greek Council of.State·in case No. 2466 to the following effect: -t,, 25 '· 2Q • ν ζ ' Ε ξ άλλο,ΥιϋιΔιοίκησις, ω ς δείκνυται ε κ τ ω γ πρρσβαλ,λομένων πράξεων,,απέρριψε,xo i αίτημα περί αποδόσεως ,του ανωτέρωχρηματικούποσού, επίτω^λόγω^ότι η τοιαύτη ^ εις .βάρος τ ο υ Δ η μ ο σ ί ο υ αξίωσις έχει Λίποκύ^ει α π ό , τ ο υ ,έτους.1954 εις την π ε ν ^ α ε τ ί ν π α ρ α γ ρ α φ ή τ ό υ νόμου.περί δημοσίου λογιστικού (άρθρον 69 Ν. 218), δ ι ά οε,της υ π ό κρίσιν αιτήσεως αμφισβητείται η νομιμότης της αιτιολο γ ί α ς ταύτης,και,ειδικώτερον, υποστηρίζεται ότι,η ανωτέ ρ ω υποχρέωσις |δεν.υπόκειται εις παραγραφήν. Η τοιαύτη ό μ ω ς αμφισβήτησις, αναφερομένη εις τ ο εάν η υ π ό τας 1783 Hadjitsangaris J. Anastassiou v. Republic
(1988)ανωτέρωσυνθήκαςπροκύψασαυποχρέωσιςτουΔημοσίου προςαπόδοσιν ωρισμένουχρηματικούποσούυπέκυψενή μη ειςτηνπενταετήπαραγραφήντουνόμουπερί δημοσίου λογιστικού, συνιστά προδήλωςχρηματικήν διαφοράν, η επίλυσιςτηςοποίαςυπάγεταιειςτηναποκλειστικήναρμό- 5 διότητατωνπολιτικώνδικαστηρίων,δι'οκαιη υπόκρίσιν αίτησις, λόγω αναρμοδιότητος τουδικαστηρίουτούτου, απορριπτέα,ωςαπαράδεκτος." ("On theotherhand theadministration as appearing from thesub-judice acts,rejectedtheclaimfortherefund ofthesaid JQ amount,on the ground thatsuch claim against thestate has since 1954 yielded tothefive years prescriptionof thePublic Accounts Law (section 69 Law 218) and by means of the presentapplicationthelegalityof thisreasoning isquestioned and,particularly, it is argued thattheabove obligation is not .<subject toprescription.Suchdisputewhich refers totheques tion whether the obligation of the State to refund acertain amount,which has emanatedundertheabove circumstances has yielded or nottothefiveyears prescription of the Public AccountsLaw manifestly constitutesa monetarydispute, the. resolvingof which comeswithin theexclusivejurisdiciton of theCivil Courts andfor thisreason this application must be dismissed as unacceptableduetolack ofjurisdiction of this Court.)" Hethen concludedatpage 928applying theabove principles bysaying: "Therefore applying theprincipleenumeratedintheabove caseoftheGreekCouncilof StateI holdthatthesubject matter of the recourse constitutes a monetary dispute which falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. This recourse shouldthereforefail asunacceptableduetolackofjurisdiciton of this Court." Havingconsidered the matterinthelightof theabovedecision I share theviewsof A. Loizou P.andholdthattheclaim inthis 1784 2 ^ •Λ-t 3 C.L.R. Anastassiou v. Republic Hadjitsangaris J. recourse is notwithin thejurisdiction of this court.Ithereforedo notpropose toenterintothemeritsof the4recourse andinparticu lar as tothequestion of theillegality of rule 4
(2)andholdthatthe recourse should be dismissed. 5 Intheresult therecourse fails and is hereby dismissed butin thecircumstances Imake noorderas tocosts. Recoursedismissed. No orderas tocosts. 178S