• • <ι_· 3 C.L.R. ,. , ; ι , j . 19880ctober3 . -, ; • ,- , . -. (HADJrrSANGARIS, J.J . ΙΝΤΗΕ MATTER OFA R T I C L E DOFTHE CONSTITUTION. * Γ ^ · , . - '•• - . . .. * . ·• . ..'. * • • . / - > . · ; .• * • ,· · THEOFANIS ARISTIDOU, ,< ι» Applicant, v. ι " '->'' · ' - 'J- . THEREPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH, -,„ 1.THECOMMITTEEFORALLOWANCES; :. 2. THEMINISTER OFFINANCE, ' • Λ " '' . *. * .i ' Respondents. (Case No. 363186). Experts—Scientificmatters—Judicial Control—Principlesapplicable. Constitutional Law—Equality—Constitution, Art. 28—Refusal to grant disa bilityallowance (Law47167)retrospectively—Application submittedout of time—The non retrospectivity does not.offendtheprinciple of equality. Theapplicantwas injured on,4.5.64 during intercommunaltights atthe villageof Kokkina while'serving as a volunteer with theNationalGuard. In 1971 heapplied twice for a disability allowance, but these applica tionswere rejected. ..... · . ' • ' - .*- · ι - .. ' : . · .. i& - : : \ '< '" ' \ In 1985 heapplied again.This timehis application resulted ina decision to approve £16 temporary disability.allowance as from 12.12.85, thedate of hisexamiriationby theMedical Board. ' Γ* ,"!.' Theapplicant's complaintsrefer tothetemporarinessof the allowance, thesum awarded, thepercentageof thedisability andthefact that thedeci sion was notretrospective as from 1964, when hewas injured. Counsel for respondentargued thattherecourse was abated, because therehasbeen anincrease inthemonthly allowance. 1835
(1988)Aristidou v. Republic Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Astheapplicantchallengesalsothe permanency ofhisdisabilityandtheretrospectivityofthepaymentthisrecoursehasnotbeenabated.
(2)Thedecisionthatthedisabilityistemporaryandthedecisionrelating toitspercentageisnotafinding of theCommittee,buttheopinionofthe 5 MedicalBoard.ThefindingsoftheMedicalBoardaremattersofscientific nature,whicharebeyondthecompetenceofthisCourt
(3)Law47/67oranyregulationsdonotmakeanyprovisionastoretrospectivityofpaymentsandthediscretionoftherespondentsinthisrespect wasreasonablyexercisedinthecircumstances. 10
(4)Thereisnoquestionofdiscrimination.Theapplicationoftheapplicant,thoughsubmittedoutsidethelimeUmitprovidedbyLaw47/67,was exceptionallyconsidered.FortheCommitteetohaveawardedtotheapplicantretrospectivepaymenttheywouldhavetogointohypotheticalassessmentofhisconditionatatimethatnoapplicationwaspendingandnomate- 15 rialwasputforward beforethem. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: EraclidouandAnotherv.CompensationOfficer
(1968)3C.L.R.44; 20 Diosmis v. TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to fix applicant's temporary disability pension at £16 per month and against the refusal of the respondents to pay applicant disability allowance as from 4.5.
- „ A. Eflychiou, for the applicant. A. VassiliadeSy for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 1836 3C.L.R. Aristidou v.Republic t v: 5 JQ *• , · ! , HADJ1TSANGARISJ.read thefollowing judgment. By the presentrecoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationof theCourt to theeffect thatpartof thedecision which was communicatedto him by a letter of the respondents dated 24.3.86.by means of which (a) atemporarydisability of 16%was fixed bythemandas aresult adisability allowance of £16per month was awarded to himfrom12.12.
- (b)Therespondentsrefused tofix ahigher award of permanentdisability and'(c),Therespondentsfailed to pay Him disability allowance retrospectively asfrom 4.5.64, the dateof theinjury of theapplicantisvoid andof noeffect what v soever. . . . , ' • - . ' • • • • . · • .' • . >.• ·. ,' THe facts'of thiscasearer^efly as/follows.Theapplicantwas injured on4.5.64during intefcommunal fights'at thevillage, of Kokkina while serving as avolunteer with theNational Guard. On 31.7.71 he submitted an application to therespondents for paymentofdisability allowance explaining thereasonsfor his<le: lay, (appendix £). Therespondentsafter examining thesaid,applicationdecided.'todismiss itasitwas madeputoiftime.This de cision of theCommitteewas communicatedtotheapplicant on 29.9.7^(appendix 3),· * n October 1971 the applicant again re applied for re-examination of his case (appendix 4). The Committeeafter re-examining hiscaseinsisted ontheirprevious decisioriahd dismissed itinforming accordinglythe"applicant by theirietterdated 22.4.74(appendix'6). , ' f jc ~ •^ 35 InJuly, 1985 again the applicant pursued his claim andthe Committeeby'theirdecision taking intoconsiderationthereports of thePolice,theNationalGuard,theWelfare'Services, andthe reportsof theMedicalBoard'(appendix 7)decided at'their meetingof 14.3.86toapprove the paymentof disability allowanceto theapplicant as from 12.12185thatis thedate thattheMedical Boardexaminedthe applicantandallowed him£16permonth'as temporarydisability allowance. Thepercentageof the disability andthedecisionof theCommittee'wascommunicated'tothe ap plicanton24.3.86(appendix9).Thisis thedecision whichisbcL ingchallengedbytheapplicant. . 1 . • ' ;' " ί .' . ' r - ·' r ; 7 '· /·-'••·, •••·.'. 1837 ' · • ,·. . r-v..·- ,. Hadjitsangaris J. Aristidou v.Republic
(1988)The applicant bases his complaints on the following legal grounds: (a)ThatthedecisionwastakencontrarytotheLawandinparticulartheprovisionsofLaw47/67andtheregulations. (b)Thatthedecisionisnotdulyreasonedandwastakenwith- 5 outdueinquiryand/orinexcessand/orabuseofpower. Therespondents by theiropposition denytheaboveandput forward apreliminary argumentthatthisrecoursewasabatedin viewof thedecisionof therespondents toincreasethedisability allowance from £16to£20asfrom12.12.85to31.12.85andto 10 £22asfrom1.1.86.In hiswritten addresscounsellor theapplicantclarifies thegroundofhisrecourseandlimitshiscomplaints tothefollowing: (a)Tothedecisionoftherespondentstoawardtotheapplicant onlytemporaryinsteadofpermanentdisabilityallowance. 15 (b)Tothepercentageofhisdisabilitybeinglimitedto 16%. (c)Tothepaymentof thedisability allowancetohimpayable retrospectively asfrom 4.5.64insteadof 12.12.1985that isfromthedatethattheapplicantbecamedisabled. Inviewofthefactthattheapplicantisnotonlychallengingthe ^ awardof£16madetohimbutalsothepercentageofhisdisability fixedbytherespondentsandalsothepermanencyofhisdisability andtheretrospectivityofthepaymentIfindthattheobjectionof counselfor theRepublicthatthisrecoursehasbeenabatedisnot substantiated. 25 TheCourtinthepresentrecourseisinvited todecideontwo substantialquestions.
(1)Whethertherespondentsexercisedcorrectlytheirdiscretionarypowerindecidingthatthedisabilityoftheapplicant 1838 3C.L.R. Aristidou v.Republic Hadjitsangaris J. wastemporaryand.notpermanentandinfixinghisdisabill , ' ityat 16%. ' ' '' •'' 5 10
(2)Whetherthereisacontravention of theapplication of the principleofequality,emergingfromthe,fact that thedisability'allowance was granted*to theJapplicant as from 12.12.85 that isthedateof hismedical examination and , not4.5.64,thedateofhisinjury. Thatistherewasnoretrospectivepaymenttotheapplicantofthedisabilityallowanceasfromthedateofhisinjury butonthecontraryhis paymentcommencedfromthedateofhismedicalexaminar tion. , - • · . .>{'.* ' • , • . •: Regardingthefirstquestionthatisthedecisionofthe,CommitteejHattheapplicant'sdisablementwas,temporary,andnotperma-, nemandthefixingof,thepercentageofdisability.tb,16%thisis J5 not afinding of the'Committee but theopinion of the Medical BoardwhichexaminedtheapplicantThefindingsoftheMedical Boardaremattersofscientific nature,whicharebeyondthecompetenceof thisCourt.AntigoniEraclidou andAnotherv. CompensationOfficerthroughtheMinistryofLabourandSocialInsu2Q ranee
(1968)3C.L^R'. p.44,kyriaebsDiosmisy.TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.461.Inthe lattercase atp.465 triamafyllides P.hadthistosay: . ' • .. ; < - \ · . . r." : ?,:ti nv t !- «e • , .* *'* i * '* "...Itwould,indeed bejnormally,beyond thecompetence of thisCourt,inacaseof thisnaturetoexaminethecorrectness,fromthescientific aspect,ofthereportoftheBoard." The sameapplies^for thefixingbytheMedical Boardof the percentageofdisabilityat16%. 30 Nowasregardsthesecondquestionthatisthequestionofretrospectivepayment,theCommitteedecidedtopaytotheapplicant disability allowance asfrom12.12.85whichwasthedateofhis examinationbytheMedicalBoard.Priortothatdatetherewasno materialbeforetheCommitteetoindicatetheapplicant'sdisability ortojustify theenforcement ofthelawinhiscase.Theapplicant 1839 ' Hadjitsangaris J. Aristidou v.Republic
(1988)duetohisownfaultfiledhisapplicationmuchlaterthanthe time limitwhichwassetbythelaw,Law47/67,whichwasinforceat thetime.Theapplicant asalready stated applied aslateas 1971 and thematerial which wasrequired andwhichfinallyallowed there-examination ofhiscasewassubmittedaslateas1985. 5 Law47/67oranyregulationsdonotmakeanyprovisionasto retrospectivity ofpaymentsandthediscretionoftherespondents inthisrespectwasreasonablyexercisedinthecircumstances. Iamoftheopinionthatinthepresentcasethereisnoquestion ofdiscrimination againsttheapplicant.Thelawprovidesfortime 10 limitswithin which applications should havebeensubmittedtogetherwithsupportingevidenceonbehalfofanyapplicants.The application oftheapplicant wasexceptionally acceptedatavery latetimebytheCommitteeandtheCommitteedecidedtoawardto theapplicantdisability allowanceinaccordancewiththematerial 15 thatwasputforward beforethemasinallothercases. InmyopinionfortheCommitteetohaveawardedtotheapplicantretrospectivepaymenttheywouldhavetogointohypothetical assessmentof hiscondition atatimethatnoapplication was pending andnomaterial wasputforward before them.Iamalso 20 of theopinionthattherespondents* decisionwasreasonableand fullyjustified inthecircumstancesofthiscase. In the result the recourse is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1840 25