(1988)1988October25 [STYUANIDES,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION MICHALIS PANTIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGHTHEPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 259/87). Legitimate interest—Free and voluntaryacceptanceofanadministrativeact— Deprivesacceptoroflegitimateinterest to challengeit. Executory act—Confirmatoryact—Newinquiry—Applicationfor modification of termsofan offer ofappointmentturneddown,because"accordingtolegal advice oftheoffice oftheAttorney-General" thetermsoftheofferwere 5 correct—in thecircumstancestherehasbeennonewinquiry—The decision is confirmatory. The facts of this case appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Court Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 10 Casesreferredto: Papadopoullou and Another v.CB.C.
(1987)3C.L.R. 1685; Kyprianides v. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 611; Spyrou v. The Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.
- 1966 *5 3 C.L.R. Pantis v. Republic Recourse. · Recourse against therefusal of therespondent tomodify con dition 3of theconditionsof serviceof theoffer of appointment. A.S. AngelideSy for the applicant. 5 A. Vassiliades, for therespondents. ι .Cur. adv. vult. *" 15 20 STYLIANIDES J.read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant was serving in theDepartmentof Town Planning andHousing as from 8th September, 1980, on acasual basis. Hewas performing duties of Civil Engineer, but mainly the duties set out in the Schemeof Service for thepost of Sanitary Engineer, Class Π. On 8th July, 1983, hewent on scholarship to Australia where heac quired thedegree of "Master of Engineering Science in Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Control Engineering". He returned totheRepublic andresumed his duties on 31st December,
- The respondent Public Service Commission in pursuance of section 3of theCasual Public Servants (Appointment toCertain Posts) Law of 1985, (Law No. 160/85)andon theTables transmittedtothemby theDirectorof Public Administration andPer sonnel on 3rd February, 1986, decided toappoint theapplicantto the post of Sanitary Engineer, Class II,in the Department of Town Planning andHousing retrospectively as from 8th Novem ber,
- 25 By letter dated 13th February, 1986, offer was made to him for theappointmentonprobation totheaforesaid permanentpost "according totheconditionsof service attached".Hewas request ed to inform, the soonest possible, the Commission whether he accepted theoffer. Thematerial partof condition 3 reads: 30 "5.Salary: The salary scale of thepost is: A9: £2821 X 136 1967 Stylianides J. Pantis v. Republic
(1988)3909. The post of Sanitary Engineer "Υγειονομικού Μηχανικού", Class Π is combined with thepost of Sanitary Engineer, Class I,thesalary scaleof which is Al 1:£3759 X 152 - 4975; and A12: £4171 X 195 -5536 (Combined Estab lishment)." On 10th March, 1986, theapplicant accepted inwritingthe of fer. Thematerial partof thatletter reads: "Αναφέρομαι στην επιστολή σας με αριθμό Π.21225 και ημερομηνία 13.2.1986 με την οποία μου προσφέρετε διορισμό με δοκιμασία στη μόνιμη (Προυπ. Αναπτ.) θέση ίο Υγειονομικού-Μηχανικού, 2ηςΤάξηςκαισαςπληροφορώ ότι αποδέχομαιτοδιορισμό αυτόκαισαςευχαριστώ. Επιπρόσθετα σας εσωκλείω πιστοποιητικό Υπηρεσίας υπογραμμένο απότον Αν. ΔιευθυντήτουΤμήματοςΠολε οδομίας και Οικήσεως σχετικά με την προϋπηρεσία μου 15 στο ΤμήμααυτόκαιπαρακαλώνακαταχωρηθείστονΠρο σωπικό μου Φάκελο." On 19th March, 1986, he sent another letter to the Commis sion which reads as follows: "Σε συμπλήρωμα της προς εσάς επιστολής μουήμερο- 20 μηνίας 10ης Μαρτίου 1986, με την οποία αποδεχόμουν τον διορισμό που μουπροσφέρετε μετην επιστολή σας με αρ. Π.21225 καιημερομηνία 13.2.1986, ζητώόπως ο όρος
(3)(Μισθός) τροποποιηθεί έτσι ώστε να ισχύσει και για μένα ακριβώς ότι θα ισχύσει και για τους συναδέλφους 25 μουοι οποίοιδιορίζονταιστην θέσηΛειτουργού Πολεοδο μίας,2ηςτάξηςστοΤμήμαΠολεοδομίαςκαιΟικήσεωςκαι έχουν προσληφθή στο Τμήμα τούτο (όπως κι' εγώ) πριν την αναδιάρθρωση. Δηλαδήνα μπορεί και στην δική μουπερίπτωση (αφού 30 προσελήφθηκα την 8ην Σεπτεμβρίου 1980) η μισθολογική μουκλίμακαναμπαίνειστηνκλίμακαΠ
- 1968 5 3 C.L.R. .Pantisv. Republic Stylianides J. , Επιφυλασσόμενος όλων των νομίμων δικαιωμάτων μου,περιμένωαπάντησησας." • ,, ,• 5 Itistobenotedthattheonlydifference between the.scales A12 andΠ14is thatthetopofscale.A12 is£5,536,r,whereasΠ14is £5,731.-,that isoneannualincrement more. ,J *• , , · \ . • < · . . The Commission on22nd May, 1986 asked for legal advice from theAttorney-General.Inthatletterof theCommission we read: 10 15 20 25 . "Mr. Pantis by letter dated 10th,March, 1986, copy of whichis attached,acceptedhisappointmentwithoutanyreser vation. Later,by a new letterdated 19th March,1986, he re quested thePublicService Commissiontomodify condition 3 (Μισθός)(Salary) of theconditionsof servicesothatwhenat alaterstagehewillbepromotedtothecombinedpostofSanitary Engineer,Class Itobeplaced in scale Π14,asit applies totheothercasual servants of theDepartmentof Town Plan ning and'Housing,who were appointed tothepost of Town ,PlanningOfficers; Class Π. . (c)Itisrelevant tomentionthatthefixing of thescaleΠ14 asthescale of thepostof TownPlanningOfficer, Class I,was . madeinapplicationof section 3of thePublicOfficers (Con version of Salaries andArrangement of OtherMatters)Law, 1981 (Law No.22/81),thatlimits theposts for which itisap plicable andthepost of Sanitary Engineer,Class.Π is not ineluded. . •
- In viewof theabove you arehereby invited togiveyour opinion whether theconditionsof service werecorrectly for mulatedbyfixing thesalary scaleof thecombinedpostofSan itaryEngineer,Class I inAl 1andA12 andnotΠ14." 30 A senior Counsel of theRepublic in a laconic manner re plied: 1969 Stylianides J. Pantis v.Republic
(1988)"Iamof theopinion thatyou correctly formulated theconditionsof service." The respondent Public Service Commission by letter dated 17th January, 1987, informed the applicant that hisrequest for modification of condition 3oftheconditionsofserviceof theof- 5 fer ofappointmentcouldnotbesatisfied as,accordingtolegaladviceoftheoffice of the Attorney-General, thecondition of salary in theoffer was correct. Hencethisrecourse bymeansof which theapplicant seeksthe annulment.of the act contained in the letter dated 17th January, 1987. Counsel for the Respondents in his written address objected that the applicant has nolegitimate interest toprosecute thisrecourse, because he unreservedly accepted the terms and conditions of theoffer made tohim. 10 15 Counsel for theapplicant argued that thislettercontains anew exectory act, asthere wasa new inquiry and there wasanewdecision which wastaken after legal advice. As provided by Article 146.2 of the Constitution, a person making arecoursemustbeonewhose "anyexisting legitimatein- 20 terest" is "adversely and directly affected" by thedecision,act or omission which ischallenged bytherecourse. In Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 553.-Phrini Papadopoullou andAliki Fereou v.The CyprusBroadcasting Corporation
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1685) the appellants, employees of the re- 25 spondent Corporation, wereAnnouncers/Newsreaders (radioand television). Before 1stFebruary, 1983,they held thepostof Announcer/Newsreader ofradioonly and theirsalary scalewasA
- On 13th January, 1983,the appellants were appointed tothepermanent postof Announcer/Newsreader radioand television with 30 effect from 1stFebruary, 1983,in thesalary scale of A8/
- They weregiven anumberof increments andthesalaryofPapadopoul1970 3C.L.R. 5 IQ ™ 25 1 30 35 Pantis v.Republic Stylianides J. lou was £3,336.- and as from' 1st July, 1983,£3,382.- and appellant Fereou wasplacedon £3,271.-.By letterdated 21stFebruary, 1983,offers of appointment with detailed terms of service .including dateof commencement and salary,were given in writing to them. Appellants'by letters dated 16th March, 1983,and 17th March, 1983,respectively accepted theoffers on the terms set out in the said offers..By letter dated 8th April, 1983, they askedfor theirappointments tobemaderetrospective,atthelatest asfrom 31stDecember, 1981andforemplacement on scaleA10, in order tobeaccorded equal treatment with their male counterparts, who had*been emplaced on scale A10.That letter was not favoured with any reply..The appellants feeling aggrieved filed therecourse whereby they sought the annulment of the decision of therespondents to emplace them in the salary scale A8/9 instead of scale A10 and the refusal of therespondents to appoint them retrospectively. The Court dismissed their appeal and had thistosay atpp.1690-1691: "For more than 20years this Courtrepeatedly held thatvoluntary and unreserved acceptance of an administrative act or decision deprives the person concerned of a legitimate interest entiding him tofilearecourse for an annulment under Article 146.2of theConstitution.The acceptance may beexpressed or implied. Itmust befree and voluntary, which itisnot ifit has been brought about by pressure of theprejudicial consequences of non-acceptance. (See Paschali v. Republic
(1966)3 . C.L.R. 593, at pp. 603-604; Piperis v. Republic
(1967)3 CX.R. 295;Stefanosloannou and Othersv.Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 146atp. 153; Petros Antoniou v.Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 452;Costasloannou v.The GrainCommission
(1968)3C.L.R, 612,at p.617;Markou v.Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 267; Pericleous v. Republic
(1971)3 C.L.R. 141 at p. 165; Myriathis v.Republic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 165; HadjiConsra/mnou and Others v.Republic
(1980)3C.L.R. 184;Tomboli v. CYTA
(1980)3 C.L.R. 266 and"on Appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R. 149;Neocleous and Others v.Republic
(1980)3C.L.R. 497, at p. 508; Stavros Aniliades v. CYTA
(1981)3C.L.R. 21; Lefkos Georghiades v.Republic
(1981)3 C.L.R. 431; Zam1971 Stylianides J. Pantis v.Republic
(1988)bakides v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1017;Goulielmos v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R.883; Stylianides v.Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 672;loannou and Othersv.Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 150; Hadjiconstantinou and Others v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 319; F.B. case, at p. 328; Vlahou and Others v. Re- 5 public
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1319, at p. 1322; G. Michaelides v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1419, at pp. 1423-1424; Mavrommatis and Others v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1006, at p. 1023; Mavrogenis v.Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1140, at pp. 1148-1149; ATa/<wv. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 135, at pp. 1| 142-143; Raftis Co. v. Municipality of Paphos
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1664;Nakis Bonded Warehouse v.Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1179; Vrahimis v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2057; P / e n t o v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 1275,atpp. 1282-1283; Chrysanthou and Others v. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1128, F.B. case, at p. 1136;Provita Ltd., v. Grain Commission of Cyprus
(1986)3 C.L.R. 737; Theodoros Papadopoulos v. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1073,at p. 1083;Republic v. Makaronopeion Carkotis
(1987)3C.L.R. 72.) Thisprinciple isofuniversalapplication.Itiswellembeded *· inour administrative law.We seenoreason todepartfromit. Having considered thecontent of theoffers of appointment andthewritten acceptance bytheappellants,andin thelightof allrelevantcircumstances of thiscase,weareinfull agreement with the trial Judge, that the acceptance of the aforesaid appointments was unreserved and free, and, therefore, by such acceptance the appellants havebeen deprived of legitimateinterestinthe senseofArticle 146.2of theConstitution, entitling them tofiletheirrecourseagainst thesubjudicedecision toappoint them with salary scaleA8/9." The aboveprinciple whereby acceptance of an administrative actprecludesapersonfromchallengingsamebefore theAdministrative Court, as deprived of alegitimate interest, does not apply when inalienable human rights areviolated. 1972 3 C.L.R. 5 Pantis v.Republic Stylianides J. Doestheletterof 17thJanuary, 1987,contain anew executory actorisitaconfirmatory actordecision of theAdministration? It signifies theadherenceof theAdministration tothecoursealready adopted;it isnotinitself executory becauseit does notitselfdeterminethe legalposition of theapplicant and therefore it cannot bethesubject of arecourse. < "' InKyprianides v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 611,the followingwas said atpp.619-620: * ' 10 15 20 25 ™ "It is well settled that a letter, which ismerely of an informative nature and does not contain adecision creating a new legal situation, isnot of anexecutory nature and, therefore, it cannot be made the subject-matter of a recourse under Art. 146. (Economides v. Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 219; Koudounaris v. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 479,482; Lardis v. The Republic,
(1970)3 C.L.R. -356, 359;HjiKyriacos and Sons Limited v. The Republic,
(1971)3 C.L.R. 286, 290; TheRepublic v.Demetriou,
(1972)3C.L.R. 219,223;Theodorou v. The Attorney-General of the Republic,
(1974)3 C.L.R. 213;HjiPanayi v.The Municipal Committee ofNicosia,
(1974)3 C.L.R. 366, 375). An act which contains a confirmation of an earlier one, may, however, be executory and therefore subject to a recourse for annulment if it has been made after a new inquiry into the matter. (Kolokassides v. The Republic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 542; Ktena and Another (No.l) v. The Republic,
(1966)3 C.L.R. 64; Varnava v. The Republic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 566/at p. 573). When does a new inquiry exist? The answer is given by Stassinopoulos inTheLawof Administrative Disputes, 1964, f4th edition, at p. 176, a passage which was adopted and applied bythisCourtinanumberofcases: 'When does a new enquiry exist, is a question of fact. In general it is considered to be a new enquiry, the taking into 1973 Stylianides J. Pantisv.Republic
(1988)consideration of newsubstantivelegalorfactualelements, andtheusednewmaterialisstricdyconsidered,becausehe whohaslost thetimelimitfor thepurposeof attackingan executory act,shouldnotbeallowed tocircumvent sucha timelimit by thecreationofanewact,whichhasbeenissuedformally after anewenquiry,butinsubstanceonthe basis of the same elements. So, is is not considered asa newenquiry, when thecaseisreferred afresh toaCouncil forexaminationexclusivelyonitslegalaspect,orwhenreferred totheLegalCouncilforitsopinionorwhenanother JQ legalprovisionotherthantheoneonwhichtheoriginalact wasbasedisrelieduponifthereisnoreference toadditionalnewfactual elements.Thereisanewenquiryparticularly when,before theissueofthesubsequentact,aninvestigation takesplaceofnewlyemergedelementsoralthoughpre- 15 existing were unknown at the time which are taken into consideration inadditiontotheothers,butforthefirsttime. Similarly, itconstitutes newenquiry thecarrying out ofa localinspectionorthecollectionofadditionalinformationin thematterunderconsideration'." 20 (See,also,Spyrouv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.354.) Inthepresent caseallthematerial wasbefore thePublicService Commission. Nonew substantive legalorfactual elements wereconsidered.TherespondentCommissionsimplyputbefore the office of the Attorney-General thelegal aspect of thecase. 25 They referred totheoffice of theAttorney-General foritsopinion. In thecircumstances, therewas nonewinquiry.The letter dated 17thJanuary, 1987,doesnotcontain anexecutoryactand itcannotbemadethesubject ofarecourseunderArticle 146of theConstitution.Theapplicantlackslegitimateinterestasdefined ^Q inparagraph
(2)of Article 146becauseheunreservedly, freely andvoluntarily accepted thedecision of theCommission byhis letterdated 10thMarch,1986. Fortheforegoing reasons,thisrecoursefails.Itisherebydismissedwithnoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1974 35