clr/1988/1988_3_633.pdf

(1988)On1.3.75counselforapplicantsandtheDeputyAttorney-Generalstatedthatthedecisionof2.8.74sappedtherecoursesoftheir subject-matter. AsaresulttheCourtconcludedthus: "Inthelightofwhatcounselhavesubmittedweagreethattheircommonviewastotheoutcomeof thesecasesiscorrect;so,thereserved judgment willnotbedelivered and thecasesareherebystruckoutas *." abated". Thepetitionoftheappellantsthatfollowed,namelythattheyshouldbe paidtheirsalariesfortheperiod30.7.73-2.8.74wasturneddown. HencearecoursetothisCourt.ThetrialJudgedismissedtherecouseon thegroundthatthedecision of30.7.73,hadbeenannulled. HencetheappealbytheRepublicandthecross-appealbyapplicants. Held,

(1)Thedecision of 30.7.73hadnotbeenannulled.Onthecontrary,therecoursesdirectedagainstitwerestruckout

(2)The apparent agreement by the Court with the views voiced by councelof thepartiesrespecting theeffect of thedecision of2.8.74,does notform partof theformal orderof theCourtorthereasonsfor theorder made.Norwasthevalidityofthedecisionof2.8.74debatedatanylength beforetheCourt,nordidtheviewsexpressedreflecttheconsideredopinion oftheCourt 20 ThedecisionoftheCourtdidnotinanywayvalidateanddidnot affirm asavalidexerciseoflawfulauthoritythedecisionof2.8.74.

(3)Thegenesisof laws,rulesand regulations,isdependentonobservanceoftheConstitution andlawsmadethereunder.Thereisnoroomfor legitimacy outside that framework of authority.ThecoupD'etatgovern- 25 mentanditsorganswhollylackedlegitimacyandoperatedinthevacuumof lawlessness.Inanyevent,Law57/75eradicated from therealmof lawful actioneverydecisionof thecoupd'etatgovernmentanditsorgans.The "decision"of2.8.74shouldbetreatedasinexistent.With thedismissalof therecoursesdirectedagainstthevalidityofthatdecisionoftheCouncilof Ministers,andtheexpirationofthetimelimitedbyarticle146.3oftheCon- ^" solution,theappellants,forfeited therighttoquestionthevalidityofthedecision of 30.7.73.Hence thepremiseof theirpetition for thepaymentof theirsalarieswasillfounded inlaw.

(4)Theorderofdismissaloftherecourseissustainedthoughfordiffer- 634 JJ 3 C.L.R. Republic v.Anastassiades , entreasons.Theappealmustalsobeformally dismissed foritdoesnot seekareversaloftheoutcomeoftherecourses. Appealandcross-appealdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: AndreouandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1975)3C.L.R. 108; Pierisv.Republic

(1983)3C.L.R. 1054; Christodoulouv.Republic

(1984)3C.L.R.865; Anastassiouv.DemetriouandAnother

(1980)1 C.L.R.589; Gregoropoullosv. TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R.449; 10 Liasiv.Attorney-GeneralandAnother

(1975)3C.L.R. 558; ChrysanthouandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 1128. Appeal and cross-appeal. 15 Appealandcross-appeal against thejudgment ofaJudgeofthe SupremeCourtof Cyprus (Hadjianastassiou, J.) givenon the4th July, 1983(Revisional Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 129/75 - 136/75 and 143/75 - 147/75)* whereby the recourses of the applicants (cross-appellants) against therefusal of theCouncilof Ministers topay tothemtheir salariesinviewof thefact thatthedecision to dismiss them wasrevoked, were dismissed. 20 N. Charalambous, Senior Counselof theRepublic,for theappellants. A. Markides with E. Efthymiou, for the respondents (crossappellants). 25 Cur. adv. vult. * (Reported in

(1984)3 CLJt. 312). 635 Republic v. Anastassiades

(1988)TRIANTAFYLLDDES P . : Thejudgment of theCourt will be delivered byPikis J. PIKIS J.: On 30th July, 1973,a numberof policeofficers and prison wardens were dismissed for dereliction of duty. The counter-appellants were amongthose dismissed forcomplicity in 5 actsdirected againstconstitutional order.Theydisputedthevalidityof thedecision of the Council of Ministersordering theirdismissal and challenged it before the Supreme Court. Because of their importance the caseswere heard directly by theFull Bench of theSupreme Court.Thehearingof thecaseswasconcludedon JQ 1.3.74andjudgment wasreserved thereafter. On 15thJuly, 1974,theGreekjunta, aided bycollaboratorsin Cyprus,staged acoup d' etat.The coupresulted in the overthrow of thePresident of the Republic and the toppling of the constitutional government of thecountry. Apuppet of themilitary,Nico- 15 laosSampson, assumed thePresidency and purported toexercise the functions of President. He named a Council of Ministers which took Office and like Sampson himself usurped the State power by the assumption of Ministerial duties and those of the Council of Ministers. On 19th July, 1974, Turkey invaded the ~o country threatening, in addition toconstitutional order, thephysicalintegrity ofthecountry anditscitizens. On 23rd July, 1974, Nicolaos Sampson vacated the office of President. Nevertheless theMinisterial Council nominated byNicolaos Sampson continued inOffice until 8th August, 1974.Be- 2 s fore theirreplacement theMinisterial Council thatassumed Office on theassumption of powerbythemilitary,took anumberofdecisions,including thedecision torevoke thedismissal of thepolicemen and prison wardens who were dismissed on 30.7.

1. They declared their dismissal void ab initio. This decision was published on 2nd August, 1974.The appellants and those affected bythisdecision returned totheirwork and wereonce againput on thepayroll of government. On 14th August, 1974,thecountry was devastated by the second round of the Turkish invasion aimed atthe partition of theCountry. Itisdifficult todescribe in 35 636 3 C.L.R. s 10 »,- ^ •^ 35 Republic v.Anastassiades PikisJ. wordsthecalamitythatafflicted thecountry;thousandsofpeople were displaced from their homes and human misery overshadowedthebeautiful landscapeofthecountry.Thatthecountrysurvivedandlegalorderwasrestored,will,nodoubt,berecordedin timestocomeasararehumanachievementandasatributetothe civilisationandenduranceofthepeopleofthiscountry.Constitutionalorderwasfully restored with thereturn tothecountryof President Makarios inDecember, 1974.Thegovernment ofthe countryembarkedonamassiveeffort toprovideshelterandrelief forthedisplacedandhealthewoundsinflicted bythebarbarityof theinvasionofthecountry. On 1stMarch, 1975,counselfor theappellantsandotherdismissedpilicemenandprisonwardenswhochallengedthedismissalsof30.7.73,signified totheCourtthattheywouldnotpursue theirrecoursestoconclusion.AstatementwasmadetotheCourt totheeffect thatthedecision of2.8.74hadsapped therecourses of theirsubject matter.Theviewtakenof theeffect of thedecision of 2.8.74 was espoused by the Deputy Attorney-General who agreed with the statement that the decision of 2.8.74had whollyrevoked thedecision of 30.7.
2. Inviewof theposition ofthepartiestheCourtconcludedthus: . "Inthelightof whatcounsel havesubmitted weagreethat theircommonviewastotheoutcomeofthesecasesiscorrect; so,thereservedjudgment will notbedelivered andthecases areherebystruckoutasabated." And theCourt adjudged theRepublic topay thecostsofthe applicants. The formal order made was the following: "Cases struckoutasabated.Orderforcostsasabove."-TelemachosAndreouand Others v.Republic(Council ofMinisters)

(1975)3. C.L.R. 108Thereafter theparties totheaboveproceedignspetitioned theCouncilofMinisterstoauthorisethepaymentofth.eir salariesfortheperiodthatelapsedbetweentheperiodoftheirdismissal - 30thJuly, 1973- and therestoration totheirdutieson 2.8.74.TheCouncilofMinistersdismissed theirclaim.Thereasonsforrejectionofthedemandformonetaryrestorationarestat637 PikisJ. Republicv.Anastassiades

(1988)edin the decision of the Council of Ministersdated 15thMay, 1975.Far from acknowledging that the decision of 2.8.74had theeffect ofrevocation ofthedecisionof 30.7.73,theCouncilof Ministersasserted that theapplicantsweretaken back andwere allowedtoreturntotheirdutiesinthespiritofreconciliationpro- 5 claimedafter therestorationofconstitutionalorderintheinterest ofpolitical unityandasagestureofgoodwill. Theacceptanceof theappellantsback totheirdutieswasdescribedasanactofepiky.Ontheotherhand,thefinancesofthe country and thedemands upon them,andtheTurkish invasion, JQ madeitimpossibletoconsiderthemakingofanygratispayment tothem. Thedecision of 15th May, 1975,waschallenged before the SupremeCourt.Itwasthesubjectmatterofthefirstinstanceproceedingsthatresultedinthejudgmentthatisinissueintheappeal j ^ before us. The applicants contended that the decision of 15th May, 1975,wasexecutory albeitinvalid for breach of thedecision of the Council of Ministersof 2.8.74 and disregard of the judgmentoftheCourtinAndreou,supra.ThelearnedtrialJudge dismissedtherecourseonthegroundthatthedecisioninAndreou ~o hadannulled thedecision of 30.7.73,thereby pavingtheground fortheinstitutionofanactionfordamagesunderpara.6ofarticle 146of the Constitution. Evidently, the learned trial Judge had treatedtheobservationsoftheCourt,ofwhichhewasamember, inAndreou asequivalenttoadeclaration ofinvalidityof theadministrative actof 30.7.73.Ifthatweretheeffect oftherulingof the Court in Andreou, the learned trial Judge would havebeen plainlyright.Butasitis,thatwasnottheeffect oftheordermade in Andreou. On the contrary, the recourses were dismissed struck out. Notwithstanding thefavourable outcome of therecourses for the Republic, signified by the dismissal.of the re- ™ courses,an appeal wasmounteddesigned tochallenge the reasoning of the Court, particularly the depiction of the effect in Andreouand,secondly,theimplicationsinlawofthedecisionof 2.8.74.The unsuccessful applicants alsolaunched acounterappeal questioning thedismissal oftherecourses.In theirconten- 35 638 3 C.L.R. Republicv.Anastassiades PikisJ. tionthedecision of theCouncilof Ministersof 15thMay, 1975, wasexecutory anditsnullification bytheCourtacondition prece­ dent to the institution of civil proceedings for therecovery of damages underpar.6of article 146ofthe Constitution. 5 The centralissuesintheappealarethefollowingtwo: (A)The effect of thedecisioninAndreouand, (B)theimplicationsinlawof thedecision takenby theCouncil of Ministersappointedby NicolaosSampson, of 2.8.74. 10 15 20 25 (A) Therulingof theCourt inAndreou: If theruling ofthe Courtintheabove caseamountedtoadeclarationof nullityofthe decision of 30th July, 1973, thedoctrineof resjudicata, asap­ plied inadministrative law, (Foradiscussion of resjudicata see thecases ofΡierisv.Republic

(1983)3C.L.R. 1054 andChristodoulou v.Republic

(1984)3C.L.R.865),would precludeany further examination of thelegal implications of thedecisionof 2nd August,

1. On theotherhand,if theruling of the Court merely signified thedismissal of therecourses the Courtmust proceedandpondertheimplicationsof thedecisionof2.8.
2. Theapparentagreementby theCourtwiththeviewsvoicedby counselof theparties respecting theeffect of thatdecision,does notform partof theformal orderof theCourtorthereasons for theordermade.Norwas thevalidity of thedecisionof 2.8.74de­ batedatany lengthbefore theCourt,nordid theviews expressed reflect theconsidered opinionof theCourt.What was struckout was not the decision of 30.7.73 but the recourses; in other words,theoutcomeof therecoursedidnot inanyway invalidate or set aside thedecision of theCouncilof Ministers of 30.7.
3. Evidently, thelearned trialJudge considered thestriking outof therecourses astantamountingtoadeclarationof invalidity ofthe decision of 30.7.
4. 30 In sum,thedecision of theCourt did notinany way validate anddidnotaffirm asavalidexercise of lawful authoritythedeci639 Pikis J. Republic v.Anastassiades

(1988)sionof 2.8.74.That being thecaseweareduty bound toexamine theeffect inlaw of that decision for thepetition of the appellants totheCouncilof Ministers forpaymentoftheir salaries following thedecision of 2.8.74,premised ontheassumption that thatdecisionobliterated thedecision of30.7.73.Evidently, theCouncil of 5 Ministers did not accept the soundness of that premise. In fact, they directly disputed it.Thedecision records that the appellants wereadmitted back totheirdutiesnotasaresult ofanyrevocation of the decision of 30.7.73 but in the spirit of the reconciliation proclaimed in theinterest of unity and as an actof epiky. There- ,Q fore, itisof the first importance for thedetermination of the outcomeof theproceedings todecidetheeffect inlawof thedecision of 2.8.74. For if it had the effect of revoking the decision of 30.7.73, it becomes apparent that the decision of the Council of Ministersof 15.5.75 wasfounded onamisconception of thelaw. (B)The validity of thedecision2.8.74 takenbytheCouncilof MinistersappointedbyNicolaosSampson: In Anastassiou v. Demetriou and Another [

(1980)1 C.L.R. 589 (See alsoGregoropoullos v.Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 449) the Supreme Court promounced that thecoup d'etat government 2 n anditsorgans wholly lacked legitimacy and operated inthevacuumoflawlessness created after theoverthrow oftheconstitutionalgovernment of thecountry.Thegenesis of laws,rules and regulations,isdependent on observanceof theConstitution and laws made thereunder. There is no room for legitimacy outside that framework of authority. Consequently, the appeal Court sustained the decision of the District Court of Larnaca (A decision decided by myself when I was a member of that Court) and the reasoning given in support of the decision that superior orders could not legitimise action outside therealm ofconstitutional or- 30 der. Asimilarconclusion withregard tothe legitimacy of the organs ofthecoupd' etat government wasreached by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its originaljurisdiction, inAristides M. Liasi v.Attorney-General of theRepublic andAnother

(1975)3 C.L.R. 558 (A decision of A.Loizou, J.). 640 15 3 C.L.R. 5 lft 20 25 30 35 Republic v.Anastassiades Pikis J. Thejudicial pronouncement on theillegitimacy of the actions of the coup d' etat government and its organs, declaratory as it was,of fundamental legal norms wasalso statutorily proclaimed tobethelaw bytheenactment ofTheCoupd'Etat (SpecialProvisions)Law, 1975(57/75).The lawdeclared thatevery action of thecoupd1etat governmentmadeinpurportedexerciseofauthorityorpowerlacks legitimacy andisinexistent inlaw.Coupd'etat government means;according tothelaw, thePresident whoillegally and unconstitutionally assumed authority (Nicolaos Samson)andtheMinistersuncostitutionally andillegallyappointedby him, including the Under - Secretary to the President and every member of it.The effect of the law wasjudicially examined by thefull Bench of the Supreme Court inChrysanthou and Others v. Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1128. There was consensus of opinion (reflected inmajority and minorityjudgments) that Law 57/75eradicated from therealmof lawful action everydecisionof thecoup d' etat government and itsorgans.The law refers indistinguishably toactionsof thecoupd'etat government andencompasses action takenindividually aswell ascollectively.Thedecision of 2.8.74 was a collective decision of the coup d* etat government, that is, of the Ministers appointed by Nicolaos Sampson and, as such, was wholly invalid and should in law be treated asinexistent.Consequently, thedecision of 2.8.74 did not have the effect suggested by counsel tothe Court in the case of Andreou, supra. Infact, itwas inexistent in lawand left intact the decision of theCouncilof Ministers of 30.7.73.With thedismissaloftherecoursesdirected against thevalidity of thatdecision of theCouncilof Ministers,andtheexpiration of thetime limited by article 146.3of theConstitution, theappellants forfeited theright to question the validity of that decision. Hence the premise of theirpetition for thepayment of their salaries wasill founded in law.The decision of the Council of Ministers of 15.5.75,on the other hand, wasbased on aproper appreciation of the law.Upon thisconclusion theclaimfor lostsalariescollapses. With this conclusion in mind, the counter - appeal is dismissed. The order of dismissal of the recourses is sustained though for different reasons.Theappeal (Wehaverefrained from 641 Pikis J. Republic v.Anastassiades

(1988)pronouncing on the amenity of the Republic,a succesful party at first instance, to mount an appeal) must also be formally dismissed for it does not seek a reversal of the outcome of the recourses. In theresult theappeal andcross-appeal aredismissed. 5 Let there bei.oorder as tocosts. Appealandcross-appealdismissed. Noorderas tocosts. 642