(1988)1988November2 [HADJITSANGARIS,J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION YIANNIS ANDREOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEDIRECTOR OFTHE REGISTRATION SERVICE ANDREHABILITATIONOFDISPLACEDPERSONS, 2.THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OFTHEREPUBLIC, Respondents. (CaseNo. 1056/85). Executory act—Confirmatoryact^-An actconfirmatoryofanearlierexecutory actcannotbechallengedbyarecoursefor annulment—Administration took the view that new material submitted by applicant did not justify reexamination of earlier decision—The recourse, which was not directed againsttherefusaltore-examine,hastobedismissed. The facts of this case appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Court. Recoursedismissed. Noorderas tocosts. Casesreferredto: Larkos v. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1160. Recourse. Recourseagainsttherefusaloftherespondentstorenewappli2006 3 C.L.R. Andreou v. Republic cant's refugee card. -. • ' ** A. Paikkos, for theapplicant.· *' A. VassiliadeSy for therespondents. • Cur. adv. vult. .· . . J r •, · . - · ' . . . * - , ' >j, HADJITSANGARIS J. read the following judgment. By the presentrecourse theapplicantprays: ·ι • · • '' (l)'For adeclaration of theCourtthattherefusal of therespon dentsof arefugee card tohimis null andvoid and;
(2)'For adeclaration of theCourt-thattherefusal of theresponT dents to renew his refugee card contained in letters dated * 11.6.85 and 19.11.85 is null'and void.• 15 20 25 More specifically theapplicant claims thatthesub-judice deci sion was taken on 11.6.85 and 19.11.85 and is based upon a misconception of facts and it is notjustified by the facts before theadministration. ' The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect thattheapplicantis time barred as regards his recourse inrelation tothedecision takenon 11.6.85confirming anearlier decision of 4.4.85 and that the decision taken·on the 19.11:85 was merely confirmatory of theearlier decisions. Shortly the facts of this case are that theapplicant, who is a Maronite from Asomatos village which was occupied by the Turks after the invasion of 1974, alleges that until 1974 he re sided andworked atAsomatos village with his motherand sisters ather house. After theoccupation of his village they all went to Limassol and thereafter to Nicosia. The applicant then went to Greecefromwhere hereturnedin 1976 setting upbusiness in Ni cosia. In 1974 a refugee card was issued tohis motherwhich in cluded the applicant and his sisters. The applicant himself ob-. 2007 Hadjitsangaris J. Andreou v. Republic
(1988)tainedarefugee cardwhichtherespondentsrefused torenewbya letterdated4.4.85onthegroundthathisusualplaceofresidence beforetheinvasionwasnotwithintheTurkishoccupiedareasbut waswithinNicosiatown. Byaletterof his advocatedated 3.5.85theapplicant applied 5 for areconsideration of his application setting out anumberof facts onwhich herelied.Following aninvestigation the respondent 1 repliedtotheapplicantbytheletterofthe 11.6.85rejecting hisapplicationoncemore. Thedecisionsoftherespondentscontainedinthelettersdated 10 4.4.85 and 11.6.85 were never made the subject of a recourse underarticle 146of theConstitution within thespecified limits. Theapplicant reapplied byaletterofhisadvocatedated 29.8.85 asking for a reconsideration of his request and enclosing four statementsinsupportofhisallegationsregardinghisplaceofresi- 15 dencebefore 1974. Tothislettertherespondent 1 repliedbytheletterof 19.11.85 to theeffect that there was nothing to beadded tothe letterof 11.6.85. As it appears from the file of the case, respondent 1 took theview that thenewmattersputforward before themdid 20 notjustify are-examinationoftheapplicant'srequest. Itisbeyonddispute thatonlyexecutory actsordecisionscan bethesubject of arecourse andthatactsordecisionswhichare merely confirmatory of earlierdecisionscannot beso.Larkos v. Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1160whereatpage 1163,TriantafyllidesP.hadthistosay: 25 "Theview that only executory acts ordecisions,and not, also, confirmatory acts or decisions, can be challenged by meansofarecourseunderArticle 146oftheConstitutionhas beenadoptedandreiterated repeatedlyinourcase-lawandre- 3Q cently, too,in inter alia,Ioannou v.TheRepublic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1002, 1008, 1009, Georghiou v. The Republic,
(1982)3C.L.R. 828,836,Mylonas v.TheEducationalSer2008 3 C!L.R. Andreou v. Republic Hadjitsangaris J. viceCommittee,
(1982)3C.L.R. 880, 887." Itwas onthisprinciple thatlearnedcounselof the respondents rested his preliminary objection andtheanswer toitdepends on theexaminationof thebasisof therecourse. 5 10 Inmyopinionitisquiteclearthattheexecutory decision ofre spondent 1was containedin theirletterdated 4.4.85 and follo winganexaminationof therequestof theapplicantthatwascon tainedintheletterof therespondentsdated 11.6.85. The decision of the 19.11.85was merely confirmatory of theearlier decisions and didnotinvolveanyre-examinationofthe matter. Ithastobe notedthatthepresentrecoursedoesnot complain of arefusal of therespondents tore-examine the matter inthe lightof newevidence butitisdirectedagainsttheoriginal refusal of therespondents 1torenew,therefugee cardoftheiapplicant. 15 Thisclearly disposes of therecoursewhich isdoomedtofail ure.In thelight of theabove I donot proposetogo intothe mer itsof thecase. Intheresult thisrecoursefails andis dismissed butinthe cir cumstancesI makenoorderas tocosts. . ,, 20, •'· '· ' ' .1 2009 * Recourse dismissed. Νσorderastocosts.