(1988)1988November29 [STYUANIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION IOANNIS PANAYI, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo.864/85). Legitimateinterest—Freeandvoluntaryacceptanceofanadministrativeact— Deprivesacceptorofsuchaninteresttochallengeit—Acceptanceofpublic officerofconditions as tosalaryaccompanying offerofappointment— Acceptordeprivedofinteresttochallengesuchconditions, Executoryact—Informativeact—Aninformativeactcannotbechallengedbya recourse. ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution,Art. 28—Doesnotexclude reasonable distinctionsanddifferentiations—Law33185—Salaryofpostreduced,butpositionofholderssafeguarded—SaidlawnotcontrarytoArt. 10
- Theapplicant accepted a written offer madeto him in writtingon 27.7.85forhisappointmenttooneof4vacantpostsofAirTrafficControl. Theoffer containedclearlythesalaryscalesforthepostinquestion,namely A8—A
- Theothervacantpostswerefilled atthesametimebythreeotherofficers.TheirscalewasA8-A10-Al1 (Law33/85).Theapplicantrequested re-examination of hisscale.TheCommission informed himthattheyhad nopowertooffer salaryotherthantheoneprovidedbyLaw. 2338 15 3 C.L.R. 5 Panayi v. Republic Hencetheis recourse.Law33/85 reduced thescaleof thepost in ques tionfrom A8-A10-A11toA8 - A10, butsafeguarded thepositionofhold ers of thepost prior toitsenactment Theapplicantwasnotamong such holdersas,atthetime,hewasholding an inferior post, whereas the other threepersons were among those thusprotected,asthey were holding such postinatemporary capacity. Held,dismissing therecourse:
(1)Theapplicanthasnolegitimateinter estas hehasfreelyandvoluntarily acceptedhisappointment. 2)Theactcomplainedofisnotexecutory,but informative. 10 3)Theprincipleofequality does notprohibitreasonable distinctionsand differentiations. Law33/85 makesareasonable distinctionbetween classes orgroupsofpersons.Itdoesnotinfringe theprincipleof equality. Recoursedismissed. No orderasto costs. 15 Casesreferredto: Papadopoulouand Another v.C£.C.
(1987)3CL.R. 1685; Koudounarisv. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.479; Lardis v.The Republic
(1970)3C.L.R.356; HadjiKyriacos and SonsLtd. v.The Republic
(1971)3CLA. 286; 20 Republicv.Demetriouand Others,
(1972)3C.L.R. 219; Theodorou v.Attorney-General
(1974)3C.L.R. 213; Hadjipanayi v.MunicipalCommitteeofNicosia,
(1974)3C.L.R. 366; Economidesv. The Republic
(1980)3CLR. 219; 25 Meletisand Othersv.CyprusPortsAuthority andAnother
(1987).3C.L.R. 1984; TheBoardfor RegistrationofArchitectsand CivilEngineers v. Kyriakides.
(1966)3Ci-Λ. 640; 2339 Panayi v. Republic
(1988)Christodoulouv. TheRepublic, 1 R.S.C.C. 1; PapaxenophontosandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 1037; Kyprianidesv.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondents toemplace 5 applicanton salary scale A8 -A10 instead of salary scale A8A10 - A11 onhispromotiontothepostof Air Traffic ControlOf ficer intheDepartmentofCivil Aviation. A. S.Angelides, for theapplicant. M.Flourentzos, Senior Counsel of theRepublic, for the respondents. 10 Cur.adv. vult. STYLIANTDESJ. readthefollowingjudgment. The applicant was apublicofficer intheDepartmentof Civil Aviation, holderof thepostof OperationsOfficer. 15 Therewerefour vacant posts of Air Traffic Control Officer. ThePublicService Cornmissiondecidedtofill thesepostsbyap pointmentof theapplicantandthreeotherpersons. A written offer of appointment was sent totheapplicanton 27th July, 1985 -Appendix A intheopposition.Attachedthereto 20 arethetermsandconditionsof serviceof thepost-Appendix D. The salary of thepost,asfixed by Law 33/85,is inthe scales ofA8-A
- Inparagraph 2of Appendix Dthesalary of thepostis clearly set outasfollows: "2.Μισθός: Ημισθοδοτικήκλίμακατηςθέσης είναι: 2340 25 3 C.L.R. Panayi v. Republic Stylianides J. A8: £2272X111-3493 και A10: £3,180X152-4396(Συνδυασμένες κλίμακες)." Theapplicant by letterdated 5thAugust, 1985 accepted with thanks the offer as set out in thecommunication of 27th July, 1985,aforesaid - (Appendix B). On 3rd September, 1985, the respondent Commission in formed theapplicant thathewas appointed tothepermanentpost of Air Traffic ControlOfficer of theDepartmentof Civil Aviation (Ordinary Budget) as from 16th September, 1985, inaccordance with theterms andconditions of service set outin theoffer No. Π. 13691,dated 27th July,
- It has to be noted that publication in the Official Gazette, thoughprovided insub-section 4 of section 37 andsub-section 6 of section 44,is notaconstitutional elementfor thevalidityofthe appointment or promotion,but only adeclaratory actof the al ready existingexecutory decision.Therefore, theformal existence orvalidityof theappointmentorthepromotionconcernedcom mences as from thecommunication of same totheofficer con cerned. Sub-section
(1)of section 37 reads: "Apermanentappointmentshall beeffected by written offer made by theCommission totheperson selected for appoint mentandaccepted by himin writing." At thesame timethreeotherpersons -namely ParisGeorghiades, Petros Michael and Andreas Pericleous -were, also, ap pointedtothesamepostinthepersonal scalesof A8 - A10 - All. On 13thSeptember, 1985,Mr.Angelidesfor theapplicant, af terreferring to theaforesaid appointments,contended thatthey wereinfringing theprincipleof equality; thatLaw 33/85 couldnot be interpreted contrary totheconstitutional order and requested re-examination of the matter. 2341 Styliflnides J. Panayi v.Republic
(1988)The Respondents by letterdated 26th September, 1985, Ap pendix Στ -informed applicant's counsel thattheCommission hadnopower tooffer salary otherthantheoneprovided by Law. Innotimethisrecourseensued,by meansof which he seeks: (a) Theannulmentof theactordecisioncontainedintheletter 5 of 26th September, 1985, and (b)Declaration thattherefusal and/oromission of the Respon dentstosatisfy therequest of theapplicantandtoremove theunequal term, is nullandvoid andwith nolegal effect whatsoever and whatever had been omitted should have beenperformed. 10 Before proceeding, it is useful torefer to theprovisions of Law 33/85.Thepostof Air Traffic ControlOfficer was carrying salary inthescales A8,AlO andAll. UnderthisLaw the salary was reducedtothescales: A8 andAlO only,that is,thesalary of 15 thepostwas fixed byLaw atthesescales andnomore. Section4makescertainprovisions for personalsalaries ofcer tain public servants. "Publicofficer" isdefined inthisLaw asthe holderof apostpermanently,temporarily,oracting andincludes 20 every person employed onfull andcontinuousbasis, eitherona casual basisoroncontract.Theholdersof thepost inanyof the aforesaid capacitiesbefore theenactmentof thisLaw were safe guarded:Publicofficers falling within the above definition on ap pointment/promotiontotheorganicpostcontinuetodraw onper- 25 sonal basis the old salary scales. The three public officers, to whichreference was madeby Mr.Angelides, fall withinthiscate gory and, therefore,onappointment theywere given thepersonal salary provided by Law. They were onacasual basis employed as Air Traffic ControlOfficers, whereas theapplicantwas hold ing thepermanentpostof OperationsOfficer. 30 Counselfor theapplicantarguedthatthedifferentiation between theapplicantandthethreeotherpublicofficers was unreasonable 2342 / 3C.L.R. Panayiv.Republic StylianidesJ. andviolatedtheprincipleofequalitysafeguarded byArticle28of theConstitution. Heinvited theCourttodeclareLaw33/85,so farasitaffects thiscase,unconstitutional. CounselfortheRespondentscontended: 5 A.Thattheapplicanthadnolegitimateinterestinthesenseof Article 146.2oftheConstitutiontopursuethisrecourse. B.Thattheactcomplainedofisinformatory andnotanexecutory administrative act and,therefore, is not amenableto reviewbythisCourt. 0 C.ThattheprincipleofequalityisnotviolatedbyLaw33/85 andthedifferentiation isreasonablyjustifiable. A.LEGITIMATE INTEREST: Theapplicant wasoffered appointment; thetermsandconditionsof thepost wereplainly set out in the documents sent to «. him.Heacceptedfreelyandunreservedlytheappointmentandhis emplacementinthesalaryscales. 0 . ThefactsofthiscasearenotdifferentfromthoseinPhriniPapadopoulouandAnotherv.TheCyprusBroadcasting Corporation,
(1987)3C.L.R. 1685.ItwassaidbytheFullBench atpp. 1690-1691: "AsprovidedbyArticle 146.2oftheConstitution aperson makingarecoursemustbeonewhoseany'existinglegitimate interest'is'adverselyanddirectlyaffected' bythedecision,act oromissionwhichischallengedbytherecourse. Mr.TalaridesinhisveryableaddressreferredtotheFrench Jurisprudence and somecasesof theGreek Council of State andtheprincipleenunciatedbyourcase-lawthatthefreeand voluntaryacceptanceofanactordecisiondeprivesaperson of. thelegitimateinteresttochallengethesaidactordecisionbefore theAdministrativeCourtandinvitedtheCourt,eitherto 2343 r· StylianidesJ. Panayiv.Republic
(1988)departfromit,ortodifferentiate it,ortolimitittocaseswhere onlyfinancialinterestisinvolved. Formorethan20yearsthisCourtrepeatedlyheldthatvoluntary and unreserved acceptanceof anadministrativeactor decisiondeprivesthepersonconcernedofalegitimateinterest 5 entitlinghimtofilearecourseforanannulmentunderArticle 146.2oftheConstitution.Theacceptancemaybeexpressedor implied.Itmustbefree andvoluntary,whichitisnotifithas beenbroughtaboutbypressureoftheprejudicialconsequences of non-acceptance. (See Paschali v. Republic
(1966)3 JQ C.L.R., 593 at pp. 603-604; Piperis v. Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R., 295; Stephanos Ioannou and Others v. Republic
(1968)3C.L.R., 146atp. 153;PetrosAntoniou v. Republic
(1968)3C.L.R., 452;CostasIoannouv.TheGrainCommission
(1968)3 C.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. 145; Myrianthis v. Republic
(1977)3 C.L.R., 165; HadjiConstantinou and Others v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R., 184; Tomboliv. CYTA
(1980)3 C.L.R., 266; and on Appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R., 149;Neocleousand Othersv. Republic
(1980)3C.L.R., 497,atp.508;Stavros ^ Aniliades v.CYTA
(1981)3C.L.R., 21;Lefkos Georghiades v. Republic
(1981)3 C.L.R., 431; Zambakides v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R., 1017; Goulielmos v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R., 883;Stylianides v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R., 672; 25 IoannouandOthersv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R., 150;Hadjiconstantinou and Othersv.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R., 319, F.B.case,atp. 328;VlahouandOthersv.Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R., 1319,atp. 1322;G.Michaelidesv.Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R., 1419,atpp. 1423-1424;Mavrommatis andOthers 30 v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R., 1006,atp. 1023; Mavrogenis v.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R., 1140,atpp. 1148-1149; Kalos v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R., 135,atpp. 142-143;RaftisCo. v. Municipality of Paphos
(1985)3 C.L.R., 1664; Nakis BondedWarehouse v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R., 1179;Vra- 35 himisv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R., 2057;Pierides v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R., 1275,atpp. 1282-1283;Chrysanthou 2344 3 C.L.R. 5 Panayiv.Republic Stylianides J. andOthers v.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R., 1128,F.B.case,at p. 1136;ProvitaLtd., v.Grain Commission of Cyprus
(1986)3 CX.R.,131;Theodoros Papadopoulos v.Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R.,1073,atp. 1083;Republic v. Makaronopeion Carkotis
(1987)3 C.L.R., 72.) Thisprincipleis of universal application.Itis wellembo died in our administrative law. We see noreason todepart from it , 10 15 20 Having consideredthecontentof theoffers ofappointment andthewrittenacceptanceby theappellants, andinthelightof allrelevantcircumstancesof thiscase, weareinfull agreement with thetrial Judge, thattheacceptanceof theaforesaid ap pointments was unreserved andfree,and,therefore,by such acceptancetheappellantshavebeendeprived of legitimateinterestinthesenseof Article 146.2oftheConstitution, entitling themtofiletheirrecourseagainst thesubjudicedecision toap pointthemwithsalary scale A8/9." Inthelightof allthecircumstancesof thepresentcase,I amof theviewthattheacceptance of theappointmentfreelyand unreservedly bytheapplicanthasdeprived himoflegitimateinterestin. thesense of Article 146.2 of theConstitutionandthis recourse, therefore,cannotbeentertainedbythisCourt. B. DOES THE LETTER OF 26TH SEPTEMBER, 1987, CONTAINANEXECUTORΥACT? 25 30 Itiswellsettledthataletter, whichismerelyof aninformatory natureanddoesnotcontainadecisioncreatinganew legal.situtation,is notof anexecutory natureand,therefore,it cannotbe madethesubject-matterof arecourse, underArticle 146- (Chrysanthos P. Koudounarisv. Republic(Ministry of Education)
(1967)3 C.L.R.,479, 482;Andreas Lardis v.Republic (Public ServiceCommission)
(1970)3C.L.R.,356,359;Hadjikyriacos andSonsLid. v.Republic (MinisterofAgriculture andNatural Resources)
(1971)3 C.L.R., 286, 290; Republic (Council of 2345 StylianidesJ. Panayiv.Republic
(1988)Ministers and Others) v. CostasCh. Demetriou andOthers
(1972)3C.L.R.,219,223;Panayiotis Theodorou v.TheAttorney-General of the Republic (Ministryof Finance)
(1974)3 C.L.R.,213;KathelenAndreHadjipanayiv.MunicipalCommittee of Nicosia
(1974)3 C.L.R., 366, 375;Economidesv. Re- 5 public
(1980)3C.L.R.,219andKyprianidesv.Republic
(1982)3C.L.R., 611,619-620). Havingconsidered withtheutmostcarethisletter,Iamofthe opinionthat.itisofinformatory natureanddoesnotcontainany decision which determines thelegalposition of theapplicant.It JQ cannot,therefore,bethesubjectofarecourse. C. PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY: Iconsiderpertinentnottoleaveunresolvedthegroundofviolation of theprinciple of equality, as under section 11.2of the Administration ofJustice(MiscellaneousProvisions)Law, 1964 15 (Law No.33/64),underwhichIexercise therevisionaljurisdictionofthisCourtinthefirst instance,appealliesbeforetheFull BenchofthisCourt. ItisthedutyoftheCourttodeterminetheconstitutionalvalidityofanimpugnedlaw,becausetheConstitution istheorganicor 20 fundamental lawincontraventionofwhichnolawcanbeallowed tostand,andtheofficial authoritytodeterminewhetherthelegislaturehasactedwithinthepowersconferred uponitbytheConstitutionrestswithjudiciary. Alaw which isinconsistentand/orcontrary toanyprovision ^5 of theConstitution maybedeclaredbythisCourtasunconstitutional.Alawispresumed to beconstitutional until sodeclared andtheburdenisuponthelitigantchallengingconstitutionalityto proveitbeyondreasonabledoubt-(TheBoardforRegistrationof Architects& CivilEngineersv.ChristodoulosKyriakides
(1966)30 3 C.L.R.,640). Anactordecisionbasedortakenunderinvalidlegislationhas tobedeclared nullandvoid andofnoeffect whatsoever-(MilnodesChristodoulouandtheRepublic(CollectorofCustomsNicosia) 1 R.S.C.C. 1;Papaxenophontos andOthers v.Republic . ^ 2346 3 C.L.R. * ' 10 15 20 25 3Q 35 Panayi v.Republic Stylianides J.
(1982)3 C.L.R., 1037;Antonis Meletis and Others v. The Cyprus PortsAuthority andAnother
(1987)3C.L.R. 1984). Article28enshrinestherightofequality. Article 28doesnot forbid every difference in treatment. The principle of "equality of treatment" is.violated if the distinction has no objective and reasonable justification. The existence of suchjustification must.be assessed in relation tothe aim and effects of themeasureunderconsideration,regard beinghadtothe principleswhichnormallyprevailindemocratic societies.Article 28islikewiseviolated when itisclearly established thatthere is noreasonablerelationshipofproportionality between meansemployed and the aim sought to be realized - (European Court of Human Rights Belgian Linguistic Case, Series A, Volume 6, p. 34,paragraph 10,asregardsArticle 14of theEuropean Convention). InArgirisMikrommatisandtheRepublic(MinisterofFinance andAnother) 2 R.S.C.C., 125,atp. 131it was said that: "... 'equal before the law'... does not convey the notion of exact arithmeticalequality butit safeguards only against arbitrary differentiation and does not exclude reasonable distinctions which have to made in view of the intrinsic nature of things." ' -' Dassification is for governmental or legislativejudgment. It ordinarily becomes a judicial question only when it has been drawn andisthen subjected totherelevantconstitutionaltests. Thedifferent treatmentinLaw33/85isnotbetweenindividual person but classes or groups of persons.The one includes those public servantswhoheldthepostonacasualbasis,ortemporarily,oroncontractandpriortothedateappointedintheLaw. Theapplicant was a holderofthepostof Operations Officer. Thisisalowerpost.Thedifferentiation was,inthe circumstances,reasonable andjustifiable. , Forthe foregoing reasons,thisrecourse is dismissed. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderasto costs. 2347