← Κύπρος

clr/1988/1988_3_2483.pdf

3 C.L.R. . 1988 December17 ... ' [A. LOEOU. P.]. INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION CHRISTOS LEVANTIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS, THROUGH 1.THE MINISTER OFINTERIOR, . Ζ THEMIGRATION OFFICER, Respondents. , (Case No. 854/85). International Law—Aliens—Thepower ofaStatetoexcludethem—Thecom­ petency toexclude,includescompetencytorequireworkpermits. ConstitutionalLaw—Aliens—Constitution,Art. 32—TheAliens andImmigra­ tionLaw, Cap. 105, asamended—-Itis alawas theoneenvisaged byArti­ cle 32. Constitutional Law—Freedom of religion—Constitution, Art. 18—AliensRefusaltograntworkpermitasaReligiousOfficerintheChurchofGod of Prophecy—Notuncostitutional, becauseArt. 18doesnotimpose anobliga­ tiontograntapersonaworkpermit. The European Conventionfor theProtection of HumanRights—Freedomof religion—Art.9—Refusalto grant workpermit as aReligious Officer in the ChurchofGod ofProphecy—Does notviolateArt. 9— Theopinionof the European Commission on Human Rights Art. 9— "A Church ofX againstUnitedKingdom" (Application3798168)citedwithapproval. ' Aliens—Workpermits—Thebreadthof the discretionof the administration un­ der the Aliensand immigration Law, Cap.105, asamended—Judicialcon­ trol—Principlesapplicable. 2483 Levantisv. Republic

(1988)Theapplicant,whoisanalien,impugnedbymeansofthisrecourse,the decision,wherebyhisapplicationforapermit10workasaReligiousOffi­ ceroftheChurchofGodofProphecy, wasturneddown. Theprinciples expoundedandappliedbytheCourtindeterminingthefateoftherecourse appearsufficiently from thehereinaboveheadnote. Applyingsuchprinci- 5 piestothefactsofthiscase,theCourtdismissedtherecourse. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Musgrovev.ChunTeeongToy[1891] A.C. 272; lf> AmandaMargaUd.v. TheRepublic
(1985)3CJLR.2583; Karaliotasv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 1701; Sawidouv. TheRepublic(19Ίΰ}3CJL.R. 118; Voulpioav.TheRepublic
(1974)3CLA.313; Pernarosv.TheRepublic
(1975)3CJJSL 175; 15 JammoulandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1987)3CLJt2088; ChurchofX.againstUnitedKingdom,AppL3798/68(EuropeanCommis­ siononHumanRights). Recourse. Recourse«gainsttherefusal therespondentstograntapplicant 20 a permit toworkiaCyprus asareligiousofficer in theChurchof GodofProphecyinLarnaca. A. Eftychiou, forapplicant D.Papadopouiou(Mrs.),fortherespondents. \ 2484 Cur.adv.vult. 25 3C.L.R. ^ *"i^5 Leventtsv. Republic A.LOIZOU P.read thefollowingjudgmenL Bythepresent recoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationoftheCourtthattheact ordecisionoftherespondentsbywhichtheyrefusedhisapplicationforapermittoworkinCyprusasaReligiousOfficer inthe Church of God of Prophecy, in Larnaca, is null and void and withnolegal,effect whatsoever. Before proceedings anyfurther I wouldliketo-mentionhere thatItookoverthiscaseonthe2ndFebruary 1988fromacolleaguewhoretiredandIgrantedextensionoftimeforthefilingof 10 thewrittenaddressoftherespondentswhichwasultimatelyfiled onthe 1stNovember
  1. - ThesaidChurchwhichisfunctioning inCyprussince1927,is registered asaCharity undertheprovisionsof Section 2ofthe CharitiesLaw,Cap.
  2. 15 , . The applicant who is Greek National born in-Alexandria, Egypt,submittedonthe12thDecember1984anapplicationtorespondentNo.2fortherenewalofhistemporaryresident'spermit in order to continue to stay with his fiance Maria Shiakalli a Greek Cypriot. On the 17th January 1985 the applicant was 20 granted as avisitor, temporary resident's permit valid untilthe 16thJuly 1985.Onthe22ndDecember 1984theapplicantgot married toMaria Shiakalli, the marriage was,as stated onthe marriagecertificateproduced;solemnizedinNicosiaaccordingto theritesaridceremoniesof theChurch ofGodof Prophecy,by ~c ChristosShiakallis,whosigneditasregisteredMinister. Respondent 2 renewed the applicant's temporary resident's permitasavisitorperiodicallywhenevertheapplicantappliedfor suchrenewal,butinrespectof hisapplication for workpermit, respondent2,afterexamininghisapplicationdatedthe26thJune 3Q 1985,wrote tohimon the 28th August 1985turning downhis application for apermittoworkasaMinister of theChurchof GodofProphecy.Hencethepresentrecourse. Theapplicantreliesonthefollowinggroundsoflaw: 2485 A. Loizou P. Leventis v. Republic
(1988)1.Thatthesub-judicedecisionisnotdulyreasoned. 2.Thatthesub-judicedecisionand/orrefusaloftherespondents wastakenafteramisconceptionoffactsasitwasbasedoninaccurate and/or incomplete and/or wrongand/orinadequate and/orunreliableinformation andreports. 3.Thatthesub-judicedecisionand/orrefusal oftherespondents wastaken without proper anddueinquiryand/orproperappreciationandafter takingintoconsiderationallrelevantfacts. 4.The sub-judice decision and/orrefusal of therespondentsoffendsArticle18oftheConstitution,Article9oftheEuropean 10 ConventionofHumanRightswhichhasbeenratified byLaw No.49of 1972andalsoArticle 18of theUniversalDeclaration ofHumanRightsoftheUnitedNationsinasmustas: (a)TheapplicantispreventedtoexerciseandexpresshisreligiousdutiesasaReligiousOfficer of theChurchofGodof, 15 ProphecyinCyprus. (b)Thereisdiscrimination andunequaltreatmentagainstthe applicantasareligiousofficer ofthesaidChurch. (c)Thefreedomofworshipisviolated. (d)Theapplicantiscompelledinamannertantamounttothe 20 exerciseofmoralpressuretochangehis religion.
  1. (a)Thesub-judice decision and/orrefusal oftherespondents wastakeninexcessandabuseofpowerasthereisnoavailableproperlyqualifiedpersonofCypriotorigintotake overas areligiousofficer ofthesaidChurchintheDistrictofLama- ^5 ca.Theydonoallowtheapplicantwhohasthesuitablequalificationstoassumethesaid Office. \ (b)Theyprevent theapplicantfrom offering Hisservicesasa religiousofficer tothecongregationofthesaidChurchwhich 2486 5 3 C.L.R. r_ ' ' Levenlis v.Republic ι •• - A.LoizouP. . . . neeoYthem, withoutreasonablejustification.-- 5 (c) Although theyallowtheapplicantto'live with hisCypriotwife *inCyprustheydonotallowhimtoexercise thesaidofficede­ priving himof therighttobeemployed inordertosupporthis family, and, ' *
  2. The sub-judice decision was taken contrary to-arid after a : wrong interpretationandapplication'of Regulation 11ofthe .. '-Aliens and Immigration Regulations of 1972, Notification - >No. 242 of 1972; -' ' < ··' · · 10 15 20 25 Itisthecasefor therespondentsthatthesubjudicedecision is, having in mind the special Constitutional and Statutory provi­ sions,thewidediscretion the^administrationenjoys onsuch mat­ ter,andtherelevant caselaw,alawful decision. Under Article 32 of theConstitutiontheRepublic is not preeludedfromregulatingby law anymatterrelating toaliensin ac­ cordancewithInternationalLaw. ' '* According totherelevantprinciples of InternationalLawthe receptionof aliens by aStateis amattef of discretion andevery Stateis, by reason of its territorial supremacy, competenttoexelude aliens from its territory (See-Oppenheim'sInternational Law 8th ed. Vol. 1, pp. 675, 676, para 314 and Musgrovev. ChunTeeongToy [189.1] AC272.) 'Furthermorey"it is uncontroversial thatevery Statehasabso­ lutediscretion torefuse theadmissionof foreigners," Schwazenberger onInternationalLaw 3rdEd.Vol. 1atp.
  3. CThe terms"competenttoexclude aliensfromits-territory",in­ cludes theterritorialrightofaStatetorefuse notonly applications for visitor'spermits,butalsoapplications for work permits. 30 Thematterof theadmission of aliens andtheir status inCyprus hasinfact been as envisagedby theConstitutionregulated 2487 ν A. Loizou P. Leventls v. Republic
(1988)by law, namely the Aliens and Immigration Law Cap. 105as amended byLawsNo.2of 1972,No.54of 1976andNo.50of 1988andtheRegulationsmadebyvirtueofthepowergrantedto theCouncilof Ministersbys.20thereof,thatistheAliensand ImmigrationRegulations, 1972,publishedinSupplementNo.3 5 totheOfficial GazetteofthrRepublicunderNo.980dated22nd December1972. It is apparent from the provisions of s. 10of Cap. 105and Regulations9and 11 of thesaidRegulations,thattheImmigrationOfficer hasbeengranted averywidediscretion,consistent JQ withthesupremacyandsovereigntyoftheState,onmattersofallowinganalientoeitherenterorworkintheRepublic. InthecaseofAmanda MargaLtdv.TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R.2583PikisJ.atp.2587saidthefollowing: "Thediscretionoftheauthorities,ontheotherhand,toex- 15 eludean alien is not abridged bythefact that itsexercise is subject tojudicialreview.BythetermsoftheAliensandImmigrationLaw,Cap. 105,thediscretionoftheStatetoexclude aliens is very wide,as broad asit can bein law,consistent withthesupremacyandterritorialintegrityoftheState;butnot 20 absolute.Itissubject tothebonafide exerciseof thediscretion. Solongasthediscretion isexercised in goodfaith, the Courtwillquery thedecisionnofurther. Analien,subject to anyrightsthat may be conferred byconvention or bilateral treaty,hasnorighttoenterthecountry.Hisonlyrightisthat «5 an application to enter the country should be considered in goodfaith.Acknowledgementofanyfurtherobligationonthe partoftheStatewouldbeinconsistentwiththesovereign right oftheStatetoexcludealiens". Inthecaseof Yiannis Karaliotas v.TheRepublic,
(1987)3 CL.R. 1701 theFullCourtheldatp. 1706:"Irrespective, however, of the fact that the discretionary poweroftheadministrationauthoritiestoacceptaliensontheir 2488 ^ 3C.L.R. Leventisv.Republic A. LoizouP. territoryareverywideandtheyarenotboundtogiveany reasonsastowhyanalienisrefused entry for securityreasons, nevertheless...." 5 Nodoubt theaforesaid apply tothepresentcase.Inthecase underconsideration theadministrativeauthorityinexercisingits verywidediscretionrefused permissiontothealientoworkasa Minister in the Church of GodofProphecy, suchcoursebeing opentotherespondentsonthebasis ofthespecialstatutoryand Constitutionalprovisionsapplicabletoaliens. 10 AccordingtotherelevantlawanaliencannotworkinCyprus unlesshe secures aworkpermit.Analien infact, seeksspecial permission todo something forbidden by Cyprus Law andthe appropriate authority's answeris that they do not allow himto workasaMinisterintheChurchofGodofProphecy. 15 InthecaseofYiannisKaraliotasv.TheRepublic(supra)the Courtheldatpage 1706,that:-" Inamatterofthisnaturethe Administrationhasverywidediscretionarypowers,theexercise ofwhichcannotbeinterfered withbythisCourtifitiswithinthe limitslaiddownbytheConstitution andtherelevantlegislation; andin thisrespect,it must beborninmind too,that thisCourt cannotinterfere withpolicydecisionsof theAdministrationand substituteitsowndiscretionintheplaceofthatoftheorganofthe Republicconcerned(seeinthisconnection,interaliaSawidouv. Republic
(1970)3C.L.R. 118andVoulpiotiv.Republic
(1974)3C.L.R.313andPernaros v.Republic
(1975)3C U R 175." (SeealsoAhmedJammoulandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R..2088). 20 25 -« Learnedcounselfortheapplicantsubmittedthatthesubjudice decisionviolatestheprovisionsofArticle 18oftheConstitution andthecorresponding Article9of theEuropeanConventionon HumanRights. Article18ofourConstitutionreadsasfollows: 2489 A.LoizouP. Leventisv.Republic
(1988)"
  1. Everypersonhastherighttofreedom ofthought,conscienceandreligion.
  2. Allreligionswhosedoctrinesorritesarenot secretare free. 3.Allreligionsareequalbeforethelaw.Withoutprejudice 5 tothecompetenceoftheCommunalChambersunderthis Constitution,nolegislative,executiveoradministrativeact oftheRepublicshalldiscriminateagainstanyreligiousinstitutionorreligion. 4.Everypersonisfreeandhastherighttoprofesshisfaith 10 andtomanifest hisreligionorbelief,inworship,teaching, practiceorobservance,eitherindividuallyorcollectively, inprivateorinpublic,andtochangehisreligionorbelief. 5.Theuseofphysicalormoralcompulsionforthepurpose ofmakingapersonchangeorpreventinghimfrom chang- 15 inghisreligionisprohibited.
  3. Freedom to mainifest one's religion or belief shall be subject onlytosuchlimitations asareprescribed lawand arenecessaryintheinterestsofthesecurityoftheRepublic ortheconstitutionalorderorthepublicsafetyorthepublic 20 order orthepublic health orthepublic moralsorfor the protection of the rights and liberties guaranteed by this Constitution toanyperson. 7.Untilapersonattainstheageofsixteenthedecisionasto thereligion tobeprofessed byhim shallbetaken bythe 25 personhavingthelawful guardianshipofsuchperson. 8.Nopersonshallbecompelled topayanytaxordutythe proceedsof which are speciallyallocated in whole orin partforthepurposesofareligionotherthanhisown." Article9oftheConventionprovides: 2490 30 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 35 Leventis v. Republic A.LoizouP. "
  4. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,con­ science andreligion;thisright includesfreedomtochange hisreligionorbeliefandfreedom,eitheraloneor in com­ munity withothersandinpublic orprivate,tomanifest his religion orbelief,inworship, teaching,practiceandobser­ vance. ' "'
  5. Freedomto manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject onlytosuchlimitationsasareprescribed by lawand . are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for theprotection of public order,healthor morals,orfor theprotectionof therightsandfreedomsof others." Article 9hasbeenthesubject ofextensive interpretationbythe EuropeanCommission of HumanRights,butΓfind thatthecase Churchof X. against the UnitedKingdom,Application No. 3798/68 is mosthelful. Suffice ittorefertothefollowing extract: "Whereas theapplicantcorporationcomplainsthatthe rights of themembers inrespect ofreligionandbeliefunder Article 9,paragraph
(1),of theConventionhave been violated bythe ' measures introducedby theresponsibleMinister,whereasthe Commission observed thatthemeasures concerned arecon­ fined, insofar as they affect themembers of theCHURCH, to adenialorwithdrawal of studentstatus,therefusalortermina­ tionof work permits andemploymentvouchers,andtothe refusal of extensions of stay within theUnitedKingdomtocon­ tinue studies atX... establishments; whereas these measures donot preventthemembers,whetherresidentorcoming from abroad,fromattending .... College of X... or otherbranches of theCHURCHintheUnitedKingdom,orotherwise manifesting theirreligionorbelief;whereas, consequently, anexamination of thecase as it has been submitted does notdis­ close anyappearanceof aviolation of therightsand freedoms setforth intheConventionandinArticle 9;whereas itfollows thatthispartof theapplicationismanifestly ill-founded within themeaningofArticle 27,paragraph
(2),ofthe Convention; 2491 A.LoizouP. Leventisv.Republic
(1988)Whereas, insofar asthemembersaffected areforeign nationals outside theUnited Kingdom,orforeign nationals alreadyresidentintheUnitedKingdom,havingstudentstatus, workpermitsoremploymentvouchersorforeign nationalsadmitted for temporary residence, and are prevended by the 5 measures introduced from respectively entering the United Kingdomorcontinuingtoresidetherein,itistobeobserved thattheConvention, underthetermsof Article 1,guarantees onlytherightsandfreedomssetforthinSection 1 oftheConvention;andwhereas,underArticle25,paragraph
(1)onlythe ,« alleged violation of one of those rights and freedoms by a ContractingPartycanbethesubjectofanapplicationpresentedbyaperson,non-govemmentalorganisationorgroupofindividuals; whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competenceoftheCommissionrationemateriae;whereasthe ^ Commissionhasalreadystatedinanumberofdecisionsthata general right of foreign nationals to enter or toresidein a countryotherthantheirownisnot,assuch,arightguaranteed byanyprovisionoftheConvention." Theanswer tothe arguments ofcounsel of the applicant on 20 thisgroundisthattheapplicantisfree toprofess anyreligionhe wishes.Therefusal ofaworkpermittotheapplicantdidnotpreventhimfromattendinghisChurchorotherwisemanifesting his religion orbelief.Thisrightdoesimposeon theadministration theobligationtograntapersonaworkpermitinordertoworkas 25 areligiousministerintheChurchtowhichhebelongs.Article18 guaranteesfreedomofreligionandnotentitlement howeverto workpermit.ThislattermatterisregulatedspeciallybytheLaw enactedundertheauthorityofArticle32oftheConstitution,and Regulationsmadethereunderaswellasthegeneralprinciplesof 30 InternationalLaw. Thereremainstoconsiderwhetherthesubjudicedecision is dulyreasonedandreachedafter adueandproperinquiry.As regardsthereasoning,samecanbefoundinthematerialinthe relevantfileandwhichalsoshowsthatthedecisionwastakenafter a 35 properinquiryandthereisneithermisconceptionoflaworoffact 2492 3CX.R. Leventisv.Republic A.LoizouP. inthiscase,noranyabuseofpower. Forall the abovereasonsthepresentrecourseshould andis herebydismissedandthesubjudicedecisionisconfirmed, butin thecircumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. 5 Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. .i 2493

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.