3.C.L.R. 1988 November
- tDEMETRIADES.!] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION MOHAMEDABDULRAHMAN TABALO, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEMINISTEROFINTERIORANDANOTHER, Respondents. (CaseNo. 479/88). Aliens—Theirstatus ana\position vis-a-visthe state—Summaryof principles emanatingfromthecase-law. NaturalJustice—Righttobe heard—Warrantofarrest—Norighttobeheard beforeitsissue. _ 1 Λ © ._ Legitimateinterest—Aliens—Deportationorder—Hearingofrecourseafterex piration of applicant'spermit to stay inCyprus—Applicant hadnolegiti mateinterestdirectlyand adverselyaffectedbysubjudiceorder. Theapplicant,who isacitizen ofSyria,obtained atemporary residence permit tostayinCyprus until28.6.
- However, following information receivedthrough Interpolthathewaswanted inSyriaforillegalimportation andforgery,an Order forhis detentionwasissuedundersection 14of Cap. 105,asastep towards his deportation under thesame section. The applicant challenged the order of detention by means of thisre course. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)When analien entersintoa Statehefalls undertheterritorial supre macy of theState,heisunder itsjurisdiction, andheis responsible * 2353 \ Tabalo v.Republic
(1988)toitforallactswhichhecommitsonitsterritory.Further,theState hastherighttoexpelanalienfromitsterritoryprovideditdoessoin goodfaith.Inthiscasethestepstakenbytheauthoritiesinorderto deporttheapplicantweretakeningoodfaith.
(2)Apersonhasnorighttobeheardbeforetheissueofawarrantofhis arrest 5
(3)The Bilateral Convention between Cyprusand Syria,ratified by Law 160/86andmoreparticularlyitsprovisionforlegalprotection ofpersonalandproprietaryrightshavenotbeenviolated.
(4)Inanyevent,asonthehearingofthisrecourse,applicant'spermitto 10 stayinCyprushadexpired,theapplicanthadnolegitimateinterest directlyandadversely affected. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 15 Karaliotasv. TheRepublic
(1987)3CXA.1701; InthematterofE.Uckac
(1988)1GLA.271; Uckacv.Republic
(1988)IOLA.271; MoyoandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R. 1203; Mohamedv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R. 2072; 20 Papasawasv.TheRepublic
(1967)3CXA,111; Papadopoulosv.TheMunicipalityofLimassol
(1974)3CXA.,352; Republicv.KM.C. MotorsLtd.
(1986)3C I A . 1899; RazisandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1982)3CXA.45. 2354 $ 3CXA. Tabalov. Republic Recourse. RecourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondentswherebyapplicantwasdeportedfromCyprus. L.Papaphilippou,fortheapplicant P.Clerides,fortherespondents. Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.TheapplicantinthisrecourseisanationaloftheSyrianArabRepublic.He arrived in Cyprus on the 24th April, 1988,and was granted a temporary permit to stay in the Republic until the 28th June, 1988,asavisitor. OnenteringtheRepublic,theapplicantdeclared thatthepurposeofthisvisitwastoinvestigatethepossibilityoftheregistrationofanoffshore company.Infact applicationstothisendwere madebyadvocatesactingonhisbehalfandaftertheapprovalof theCentralBankwasobtained,two
(2)offshore companieswere registered,inbothofwhichheisthemainshareholder. On the 26th May, 1988,theDamascus Interpol by telexinformed theCyprusPolicethattheEconomicInvestigationJudge inTartoushadissuedawarrantforthearrestoftheapplicantfor illegalimportationandforgery andrequestedhisimmediatearrest ashisextradition wastoberequested throughdiplomaticchannels. (Regarding the extradition of a Syrian citizen from theRepublic,itistobenotedthatthereisnoConvention betweenthe twocountries). As a result, the Cyprus Police placed the applicant on the "StopList"andatthesametimetheChiefof theCyprusPolice Forceinformed theHeadoftheImmigrationServiceofhisForce 2355 - ^ Demetriades J. Tabalo v. Republic
(1988)of thecontents of the telex andaskedhim totake the necessary steps for theissueofDeportationandDetentionOrders undersec tion 14of theAliensandImmigration Law, Cap.
- TheDirector-Generalof theMinistry of Interiorthen,onthe information supplied to him by the Immigration authorities, signed anOrder for thedetentionof theapplicant. However, no deportationOrderwas madeasnosuchorderwas eversignedby theMinisterofInteriorwho,undertheprovisions of Cap.105,is theappropriate authority toorderthedeportation of aforeign na tional. 5 Onthe27th May, 1988, thePolice,purportedly acting under thepowers given tothembyvirtue of thecontentsof thesaidDe tentionOrder,arrested theapplicant,seizedhistravellingdocu mentsandkepthimincustody for sometime. ItispertinentheretomentionthattheCyprus Authorities, after 15 theapplicant was arrested andkeptindetention,attherequest of the Syrian Embassy, which hadinformed themthatit suspected thatthepassport of theapplicant was forged,handedittoit.The Embassy thencancelled thepassport and,as aresult, the appli cantcannolonger makeuse of itinordertotravel toacountryof 20 hischoice. Onthe28thMay,1988,theapplicantfiledthepresent recourse by which heprayed for adeclaration thatthedecision of theChief Immigration Officer for the deportation of the applicant, and which was taken on or about the 27th May, 1988, was illegal, 25 nullandvoidandof no effect Thisprayer was later by consentof theparties amendedandit now reads: "Δήλωση ότι η απόφασητουΛειτουργού Μεταναστεύ σεως ημερομηνίας κατά ή περί 27.5.1988 για έκδοση 30 εντάλματος ή/χαιοδηγιών για κράτησητον Αιτητή με βάσητο άρθρο 14τον ΠερίΑλλοδαπώνκαιΜεταναστεύ2356 jo 3 CX.R. Tabalov.Republic Demetriades J. σεως Νόμου και στη συνέχεια να απελάσει τοναιτητή είναιπαράνομη,άκυρηκαιστερημένη οποιουδήποτεαπο τελέσματος." 5 10 15 20 ("Declarationthatthedecision of theImmigration Officer, which was takenonoraboutthe27.5.1988,/or theissue ofa warrantand/ordirectionsfor^thedetentionof theapplicanton thebasis of theprovisions ofsection 14of theAliensandIm migrationLawandthereafter todeport himis unlawful, null andvoidandofnoeffect.") Thehearing of therecourse was delayed as several applica tionsfor interlocutory proceedings were filed by both sides.In addition, the Syrian Arab Republic applied to the Court tobe granted leave tointervene as aninterestedparty. Itsapplication was heardbutbefore thisCourtgaveits Ruling as towhether.it hadalegitimateinteresttointerveneintheproceedings,itscoun sel applied for leave towithdraw theapplication of his clients which was, asaresult,dismissed. Having dealt with,the facts of thecase, I shall now haveto deal with thecase of thetwo sides, namely thatof theapplicant andof the respondents. Thecaseoftheapplicantwas originally basedonthefollowing groundsof law,thatis,thattherespondents (a) wrongly decidedthathewas anundesirablevisitor, 25 (b)based theirdecision oninformation which is neitherevidencenorcanitallowtheexercise ofcorrectdiscretionary power, (c)wrongly appliedtheprovisions of Cap.
- By leaveandwith theconsentof therespondents, thefollow ingadditionallegalpointswereraisedbytheapplicant: , 2357 DemetriadesJ. Tabalov.Republic
(1988)1.Theprinciplesofnaturaljusticewereviolatedinthatnoopportunitywasgiventotheapplicanttobeheardbutwithoutnotice hewasarrestedandwasplacedunderpolicedetentionandwas deprivedofhispersonal freedom. 2.Articles11 and12oftheConstitutionwereviolatedinthatthe 5 applicantwasfound guiltyforoffences whichhehadnotcommitted and of which he knows nothing about and/or which cannotstand.
- TheApplicantwasarrestedonfalse chargesfor offences that he had not committed and/or on theallegation that he is in- 10 volved incriminaloffences which werecommitted in Syria, punishable therewithdeath,asentencewhichhasbeenabolishedinCyprus.
- The respondents acted in contravention of theprovisionsof section 14of Cap. 105because theyfailed togivethenotice 15 providedbythissection.
- The respondents acted in violation of section 14A of the amendingLawtoCap. 105(Law54/76).
- Therespondents acted underamisconception of facts inthat they 20 (a)failedtocarryoutadueoranyinquiryinordertoascertain therealfacts; (b)disregardedthefact thattheapplicantisashareholderand themanagerofashippingaswellasofanoffshore companyinCyprus; (c)failed toexaminetheconsequencesofthesubjudicedecisionforthecompaniesoftheapplicant; (d)failed toinvestigateandascertainthefact thatthepolitical beliefsoftheapplicantarenotofthelikingoftheSyrianre2358 25 3 CX.R. TabaΙοv.Republic Demetriades J. gime,thegovernment of which and/orits organs seek,by devious measures,todeprive theapplicantof his freedom and/orlife; 4 • '' 5 (e) failed toinvestigate andascertainthat thecharges which the applicantfaces (inSyria)arefabricated and/orthathisextra,ditibnis sought withouttheexistence of abilateralconven> tionand/orwithoutprovision ofa law; (f)failed totakeintoconsiderationthatthe applicanthascom mittednooffence underthelawsof theRepublic. 10 15 20 25 30 7.Theactand/ordecision of therespondentslacks reasoning,is arbitrary andis basedonextraneous factors. 8.Thesubjudicedecisioncontravenestheletterandspiritofthe Bilateral Conventionsigned between CyprusandSyria which was ratified by Law 160/86andinparticular Article 1ofthe Conventionwhichprovides for legalprotection, moreparticu larly itsprovision thatcitizensofthecontractingparties enjoy inthe othercontractingparty thesamelegalprotectionregard ing personal andproprietary rights as nationals of the other contractingparty. The respondents opposed the recourse alleging that it was made against a nonexistent administrative decision and/or act; thatitwas asuggestion (meaningapparentlythat adeportation or derhadbeensuggestedtobemade)andthusitwas notanexecu tory decisionoract;thatinanyeventthesubjudice decision was correctaridlawfully takeninaccordancewith theprovisions of the Constitution,thelaws and theregulations; thatthe respon dentsexercised thepowers vested inthem by legislation correctly andthatthesubjudicedecisionwas dulyreasonedandwastaken after dueinquiry.Theyfurtheralleged thatinanyeventthepermit giventotheapplicanttostay inCyprusasavisitor hadexpired. Atthebeginning of thehearingof therecoursecounselforthe respondents withdrew his groundof opposition thatthesubju2359 Demetriades J. Tabalo v. Republic
(1988)dicedecisionforthedeportationoftheapplicantwasnotanexecutory onebecause,he said,althoughthedeportation orderwas not signed, the procedure for the deportation of the applicant startedandwasputintoeffect bythesigningoftheorderforthe detentionoftheapplicant 5 Inowcometothegroundsoflawonwhichtheapplicantbases hisrecourse:I shall take atfirst grounds3and6(a),(d)and (e): Thereisnoevidencetosubstantiatethesegrounds.Intheevidencethat the applicant gaveduring the interlocutory proceed- 10 ings,bywhichtherespondentshadappliedforthedischargeofa provisionalordermadebytheCourtonanexparteapplicationof theapplicantforstayofexecutionoftheorderforhisdeportation, he stated that he did not know why the Government of Syria wanted hisextradition to thatcountry,butashesaid, hisguess 15 was thatit wasfor political reasons. Nootherexplanation was given by him.Therefore, groundsof law 3,6(a),6(
- d)and6(
- e)fail. I shallnowdealwiththeremaininggroundsoflawonwhich theapplicantbaseshisrecourse. First ground: Hie argumentsputforward insupportof thisgroundareunsupported bylegalauthorityandtomyknowledgeandintheresearchthatIhavecarriedoutIhavenotcomeacrossanauthority supportingtheviewthatapersonagainstwhomawarrantforhis 25 arrest had been issued has arighttobeheard and givereasons why heshould notbearrested.Thisground, therefore, must,in viewofmyfinding,fail. Second ground: Withregardtothisground,thereisapparentlyamisconception 30 onthepartoftheapplicantastotheinterpretationofArticles11 and 12of theConstitution, asfrom thematerial before me,the 2360 20 3 CX.R. 5 Tabalov.Republic Demetriades J. ImmigrationAuthoritiesof Cyprus,whichsuggestedthedeporta tionof theapplicant, basedtheirdecisiononinformationprovided tothemby theInterpolandtheyneverexpressed anopinionasto theguilt of the applicantfor thealleged offences they wereinformed thathehadcommittedinSyria andfor whichhisextradi tion was requested. All othergroundsof law, onwhichtherecourseis based,ex ceptground8,turnontheissueof therightsof nationalsof for eigncountriestoenterandstayintheRepublic. 10 15 20 In a series of recentjudgment, the Supreme Court of this countryhasendorsedwhatisinternationallyacceptedonthis mat terandwhichIdaretosummarizeasfollows: Every stateexercises territorialsupremacy over allpersonson itsterritory,whethertheyareitssubjects oraliens andthereisno obligation by ittoacceptanalienortoallowhimtoremaininit. When analienentersintoastatehefalls undertheterritorialsu premacy of the State,heis underitsjurisdiction andisresponsi ble toitfor allactshecommitsonitsterritory.Further,the State hastherighttoexpel analienfromitsterritoryprovideditdoesso ingood faith. Insupportof thesummary of theauthoritiesthatI have made, see: (i)Oppehnheim's InternationalLaw, 8thEdition,Vol.1,Part IIChapterΠΙ,SectionsVI,VIIandVHI. 25 (ii)Karaliotas v.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.1701. (iii)Inthematter ofE. Uckac
(1988)1C.L.R.271 andCivil Appeal No.7616) (judgment issued on the 27th May, 1988). 30 (iv)SydneyAlfredMoyo andanotherv. TheRepublic,(\9%&) 3 C.L.R. 1203. 2361 DemetriadesJ. Tabalov.Republic
(1988)(v) Titi Abdel Aziz Mohamed v. The Republic,
(1988)3 C.L.R. 2072. Consideringthefact thattheauthoritiesofCyprushadreliable information thattheapplicantwaswantedbythejudicialauthority ofSyriaforseriousoffences committedinthatcountrybyhim,I 5 findthattheauthoritiesof theRepublic,intakingthestepsthat theytookinorder todeport him,actedingoodfaith. Therefore, allgroundsoflawunderthisheadingfail. Asregardsnow ground of law 8,1 find no merit in it. It is clearfromthewordingoftherelevantArticleoftheConvention 10 signed between Cyprusand Syria,that theapplicant wasnotrefused of legalprotection regardinghispersonal andproprietary rights. Astriking exampleof thisisthathewasallowedtotake andpursuethepresentproceedings.Intheresult,thisgroundof lawalsofails. 15 Before dismissing thisrecourse,Iwouldliketodeal withan issuethat wasindirectly raised bytherespondents andwhichis whethertheapplicanthadalegitimateinteresttoproceedwithhis recourse. Ithasbeenjudiciallydecidedthat: 20
(1)Aperson,inordertobeentitledtoavailhimselfoftheprovisionsofArticle 146.2of theConstitution,musthavealegitimateinterestwhichexistsatthe time (a)theactordecisionoftheadministrativeorganwastaken, (b)therecoursewasfiled,and 25 (c)ofthehearingoftherecourse. SeePapasawas v. TheRepublic,
(1967)3CL.R. I l l ,Papadopoulosv. TheMunicipality of Limassol,
(1974)3 C.L.R. 352. 2362 3 CX.R. Tabalo v.Republic Demetriades J. / . ι
(2)Theexistence oflegitimate interest can be inquired intobyan. Administrative Courtactingex propriomotu. 10 • : ^ Λ " Inthisrespectreference maybe made,amongstothers,to the:. * r cases of Republicv. K.M.C. Motors Ltd.,
(1986)3 C.L.R.\ > . fc 1899; P. Razisand another v. TheRepublic,
(1982).3C.L.R. V- : ,/. 45. •/", f . 4 AsIhaveearliersaid,the applicantwasgranted»a temporary permittostayinthe Republicuntil the 28thJune, 1988, and.he',. •*. therefore,on the daythehearingofthisrecoursestarted,washot· ^'.$ί lawfully staying inCyprus and thus hehad hoexistinglegitimate Κ interest adversely anddirectly affected bythesubjudice decision. -. '-' In the result, the recourse of the applicant fails also for this reason. 15 ' ^ Recourse dismissed but,inthecircumstances, Imake noorder asto costs. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. 2363 < < ' φ . . . . '• • ' - ' . ' 5 . •. • . -- J "*v> ^