(1988)1988December 10 [A.LOEOU, P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION FARHADSHABESTARI, Applicant, v. χ THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEDIRECTOROFTHEMIGRATIONDEPARTMENT, 2.MINISTEROFINTERIOR, 3.MINISTRY OFINTERIOR, 4. CHIEFOFPOLICE, Respondents. (CaseNo. 899/88). Provisionalorder—Negativedecision—Cannotbe suspendedby suchan or der—Refusal to extendanalien'stemporaryresidencepermit—Itis in es senceanegativedecision. Thefactsof thiscasesufficiently appearintheJudgmentof theCourt. Applicationdismissed Noorderas tocosts. Casesreferredto: Goulelis v.TheRepublic
(1969)3C.L.R. 583; Artemiou (No.2) v. TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R. 562; Tyrokomou v. TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R. 403; 2416 1 0 3CX.R. Shabestari v. Republic Georghiou(No.1)v.TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R.401; MoyoandAnotherv.Republic
(1988)3C.L.R. 1203; Mohamedv.TheRepublic
(1988)3CXA.2072. Application for a provisional order. ^ Applicationforaprovisionalordersuspendingthedecisionof the respondents by which they refused renewal of applicant's temporary resident's permit and which refusal has as aconsequencehisimmediateexpulsionfromCyprus. S.Papaleontiou,fortheapplicant ,Q P.Clerides,fortherespondents. Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOU P.readthefollowingjudgment/The applicantis anIraniansubject.Uponhisarrival inCyprusonthe1stDecember, 1987hewasgrantedatemporaryresident'spermitasavisi15 tor.Hissaidpermitwasrenewedfromtimetotimeuntilthe7th November 1988,whenitwasmadevaliduntilthe 15thNovember 1988,andmarkedas"Final". DuringhisstayherehewasmaintainedbytheSpecialMission in Cyprusof theUnitedNationsHighCommissionerfor Refu20 gees,theCyprusRedCrossandtheAnglicanChurchwhichundertooktosupporthimuntilheleftCyprus.HewasalsosupportedbymoneysentbyhisbrotherfromCanada.Thesupportofthe United Nations Mission continued until the end of September 1988, when hewas duly notified by themthat they nolonger 25 considerhima"politicalrefugee".Infact theperiodicalrenewals ofthepermitsinquestionweremadeattherequestoftheSpecial Missionsothattheywouldhavetimetoarrangehisemigrationto Canada, wherehisbrother alsoresides.TheCanadianGovernment,however,onthe 16thAugustrefused togranthimavisa. 2417 A.Loizou P. Shabestari v.Republic
(1988)TheapplicantisaUniversitygraduateandanauthor,currently engagedinthewritingofanArabicPersianDictionary. Onthe 17thNovember 1988,theapplicantfiledthepresentrecourseprayingfor "adeclaration thatthedecisionoftherespondentscommunicatedtohimonoraboutthe14thNovember 1988, 5 bywhichtheydecidednottoextendhistemporaryresident'spermitinCypruswiththeconsequenceoftheimmediateexpulsion and/orviolentremovaloftheapplicantfromCyprustoIranisnull andvoidandwithnolegaleffect and/ortheomissiontoallow the applicanttoremaininCyprusforalongerperiodisnullandvoid JQ andofnolegal effect". At the same time this interlocutory application was filed by whichtheapplicant seeksaprovisional ordersuspendingthedecision of therespondents by which theyrefused thefurther renewalof thetemporary resident'spermitof theapplicantinCy- 15 prus and which refusal has as a consequence the immediate explusion and/orremoval byforce oftheapplicant from Cyprus untilthefinaldeterminationofhisrecourse. What the-applicant isineffect seekingby thisapplicationby wayofaprovisional orderamountstothisCourtgrantinganex- 20 tensionofhisstayinCyprusbeyondthedatepermittedbytheappropriateAuthorities.Inotherwordsifthedurationofthetemporaryresident'spermit grantedisineffect anegativedecision,as farasthedurationisconcernedtotheapplicant'sapplication for onemonth staywhichwasfiledonthe5thOctober 1988,1shall 25 beturningmyself intotheappropriateAdministrativeOrgan,ifI weretograntthisprovisionalorder,asthiswouldresultingrantinghimaresident'spermitfor aperiod longereventhantheone he applied for. In substance whatissoughtisthe suspensionof theeffect of thedecision ofrespondent2,whichisinessencea negativedecision of the administration. Even if, however,it is consideredtobeapositiveone,Iwouldhavethenbesubstituting myselffortheadministration. Theprincipleenunciated inanumberofcasesasregardsthe 2418 3C.L.R. 5 0 ^ Shabestari v.Republic A.LoizouP. grantingofprovisionalordersagainstanegativedecision,isthat itisnotpossibletosuspendnegativeadministrativedecisionsby meansofprovisionalordersunderRule 13of theSupremeConstitutionalCourtRules.Thishasbeenwellsettledinanumberof cases,andreference may bemade toGoulelis v.The Republic
(1969)3C.L.R.583,whereaprovisonal order wasrefused on thegroundthathaditbeenmadeitwouldhaveamountedineffect totheCourtitself grantingaresident'spermittotheapplicantin thatcaseandsotheCourtwouldhaveactedasanorganoftheadministration.ReferencemayalsobemadetothecaseofArtemiou (No.2) v. TheRepublic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 562; Tyrokomouv. TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R.403,where the sameprincipleis reiterated asthatinGouleliscase(supra),andwherethecaseof Georghiou (No. 1) v.,The Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R.401was distinguished. Relevant isalsotheapproach ofthisCourtinitsjudgmentin MoyoandAnother v.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R. 1203and Mohamedv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.2072)onanapplicationforaprovisionalorder. ^ Onthebasisof theaforesaid wellsettledprinciplesofLawI refuse thisapplication,butinthecircumstancesImakenoorder astocosts. Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 2419