3 CX.R. 1988March28 [TRiANTAFYLLIDES,P.,MALACHTOS. SAVVIDES. PIKISANDKOURRIS, JJ.J PANAYIOTIS KYRIACOUANDOTHERS, Appellants-Applicants, v. THE MINISTER

INTERIOR, Respondent. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo. 563). Constitutional Law—RevisionalJurisdiction—Judgment voiding administrativeaction—Constitution.Arts, 146.4(b), 146.5and 150—The dutyof active compliance with such an action —Whether breach

such duty amounts to contempt—Question determined in the affirmative—Whether compliancewith0.42A

theCivilProcedureRules anecessaryprerequisiteofthepunishmentfor contempt—Question answeredinthenegative. Revisional Jurisdiction—Practice—TheSupreme Constitutional Court Rules, 1962,Rule 18—Theapplicability in virtue thereof

the Civil Procedure Rules issubject tothecompatibility

suchRules withtheConstitution or thenatureoftherevisionaljurisdiction. ContemptofCourt—SeeConstitutionalLaw—Revisional Jurisdiction. Theissueraised inthisappeal isthenatureandeffect

adeclaration

nullity

administrative action given under para. 4(b)

Art. 146of the Constitution and theimplicationsstemming from suchjudgment, particularlythedutyofthe

Administration togive effect toit. Held, allowing theappeal, Malachtos and Sawides,JJ. dissenting:

Interior

annulledadministrativeactionis apositive onerequiring theAdministration toremovethesideeffects

the action.

theattributes

adeclaratory jt tgmentgiven underpara.4.Theobligation is notconfined to observing the.'idical declarationofvoidancebutbindseveryone,particularly theAd­ min itration, to " ενεργόν συμμόρφωσιν προς ιαύτην "-"ac­ tiveLompliancethereto."

thejurisdictionunder Art. 150 is subject totheprovisions

Ord.42A, r.I,

theCivilProce­ dureRules,stipulating serviceof anendorsed copy

theorder orjudg­ mentasaprerequisite tocommittalfor contempt, 10 15

Rule 18of theSupremeConstitutional CourtRulesthe Civil ProcedureRules apply toproceedings underArt. 146mutatis mutan­ dis. Suchapplicability is subject totheircompatibility with the provisions

theConstitutionaridthenatureof therevisional jurisdiction. 20

Ord.42A arehardly compatible with thestatusand impersonalnatureof stateorgansboundtoactivecompliancewith theorder

the Court, Itfollows that0.42A is notapplicable. 25 Appealallowed. Casesreferredto: Ioannidesv. TheRepublic

Interior , Republic v. Nissiotou

aJudgeof the Supreme Court

Cyprus (A.Loizou, J.) given on the 21st February, 1986(Revisional Jurisdiction Case No 198/78)* whereby appellants' application for an order

theCourt ordering theimprisonment

theChief

Policefor contempt

court wasdismissed. P.Angelides, for the appellants. R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel

the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.Themajorityjudgment

the Court, with which Kourris,J. and myself agree, will bedelivered byPikis J. PIKISJ.: In thisappealan important question

constitutional law mustbedecided:Thenature andeffect

adeclaration

nullityofadministrativeaction givenunderpara.4(b)

Art. 146of the Constitution and ,theimplications stemming from suchjudment,particularly thedutyof the

Administration togiveeffect to it.If wefind that a positive duty iscast on theAdministration to eradicate theill-effects

thevoided action,we must next determine whether defiance

that duty or refusal to give effect to it renders the

ficials responsible guilty

contempt

the Supreme Court underAn. 150of the Constitution. * (Reported in

Interior

Art. 146aredeclaratory innature anddonotcasta positivedutyonthe

Administration such aswouldrender anyone refusing totakeaction warranted thereunder liabletobecommittedforcontempt under anyarticle

the Constitution. Thejuris- 5 diction

the Supreme Court to punish for contempt

itself, conferred byArt. 150,presupposes because

thenatureofcontempt, theexistence

amandatory directive inthejudgment itself, an attribute wholly absent from adeclaratory judgment issued under para. 4(b).Jurisdiction under Art. 150is necessarily 1 0 dependent onthepresenceofapositiveduty such astheonethat existed in thecase

1oannides v.Republic

persons were found guilty

contempt for disobeying aprovisional orderoftheCourtprohibiting thedeportationofthe applicant. Para. 5ofArt. 146of theConstitution doesnot,intheviewof the learned Judge, alter thenature orcomplexion

ajudgment given under thepreceding paragraph, para.4(b),nordoesitadd toitstenor. Para.5imposes aseparate andindependent constitutionalobligation unrelated totheefficacy

thejudgment orthe provisions

Art.150

. If atallsusceptible tocontempt proceedings tojustify committal for contempt, the provisions

Ord. 42A,r.l, must becomplied with. This order

theCivil Procedure Rules requires that anendorsed copyofthejudgment ororder

the Court beserved upon thosetowhom itisaddressed re- 25 quiring them totake theaction named therein within a specified time; warning them, atthesametime,

liability forcontemptof Courtincase they fail totaketheaction ordained inthejudgment

theCourt. For the above reasons, thetrial Court decided that contempt proceedings raised against theChief

thePoliceforalleged fail- ^0 ure togiveeffect toadeclaratoryjudgment

theSupreme Court wereill-founded andunsustainable inlaw. In order toanswer thequestions raised inthisappeal wemust explore thenature

adeclaratory judgment under Para.4(b)

35 646 3 CL.R. 5 ,Q 20 25 30 35 Kyriacou v. Minister

Interior Pikis J. Art. 146

the Constitution and ascertain its implications. A judgment voiding administrative actionoperateserga omnes(See Conclusions from the Greek Council

State 1929-1959, p. 281). Like ajudgment affecting status in thedomain

private law, (Nicolaides v. Yerolemi

ju­ dicial reviewof administrative actiondesigned toensure that the Administration operateswithin thelimitsof thelaw andinaccordance with thenorms

sound Administration. But thematter does notendthere.TheAdministration,infact everyone having a say inthematter, mustobliteratetheconsequences

the annulled act andeffectively restore legality.The implications stemming from adeclarationof annulmentarediscussed by Mr. Kourousopoulos,President

theGreekCouncilof State,inanilluminat­ ing articleonthenature andeffect

thejurisdiction

the Greek Council

State. (See Lecture to the Nicosia Bar Association 1984, p. 11.)Theduty toremove theaftereffects

annulledad­ ministrative actionis apositive onerequiring theAdministration toremove theside effects

theaction.InGreece, default onthe partof theAdministration tocarry outthisduty andeffectively re­ storelegality,renderstheofficial orofficials responsible liable to penal and disciplinary sanctions (See s. 50

Art. 146viewedin conjunction with Art.150of the Constitution.

Para.5of Art. 146isdefinitive

theattributesof adeclarato­ ry judgment given underpara.4. Theobligation is not confined toobserving thejudicial declarationof voidance butbindsevery­ one, particularly the Administration, to " ενεργόν συμμόρφωσανπροςταύτην "-" active compliancethereto". Assidefrom thenaturalimplications

para.5of Art. 146exam­ inedinjuxtaposition topara.4 (b),earlier described, thereisau­ thority toosupporting theproposition thatpara.5is anadjunctto para.4 definitive

theattributes

adeclaratory judgment.In Republic v. Nissiotou,

Interior

Art. 146

the Constitution provides about the remedies to be granted in recourse under such article; and para. 5

Art. 146

does not provide for a separateor additional remedy butcan only beinvoked andapplied inrelation toan application for punishment for contempt

Court under Art. 150ofthe Constitution". 5 See also first instancejudgment on the natureof contempt under Art. 150

the Constitution Nissiotou v. Republic

itself; and ,

course,one form

contempt isnon-compliance with 15 itsjudgments". Therefore, as a mattter

principle, analysis

the provisions

paras. 4 and 5

Art. 146

the Constitution and authority, para. 5of Art. 146imposes aduty

activecompliance, asearlier indicated, for breach

which a person may be committed for 20 contempt under An. 150of theConstitution. Next we must decide whether theexercise

the jurisdiction under Art. 150 is subject to the provisions

Ord. 42A, r.I,

the Civil Procedure Rules, stipulating service

an endorsed copy

the order orjudgment as aprerequisite tocommittal tor 25 contempt. The endorsement serves to specify the act, limit the time within which the act is tobedone and warn

the punitive consequences

disobedience. Rule 18

the Supreme Constitutional Court Rules 1962 (made applicable by s. 17-,Law 33/64)makes theCivil Procedure 30 Rules applicable toproceedings before the Supreme Court in the exercise

itsrevisionaljurisdiction "mutatismutandis toallpro648 3 CL.R. Kyriacou v. Minister

Interior Pikis J. ceedings before theCourt so far as circumstances permit orun­ lessotherprovisions have been madeby these Rules or unless the Court or any Judge otherwise directs". It is clear from the wording

R. 18 that the applicability

5 any orderof theCivil ProcedureRules is subject toits compatibil­ ity with the provisions

the Constitution and the nature

the jurisdiction conferred thereunderupon theSupremeConstitution­ al Court.Where theConstitutioncasts, as in thecase

para. 5

Art. 146

, a duty

active compliance,any attempttocurtail this IQ duty or limit its application orefficacy, would run counter tothe Constitution. And would, as a result, defeat the intention

the constitutional legislator. Moveover, the provisions

Ord. 42A are hardly compatible with the status and impersonal nature

state organs bound to active compliance with the order

the ,<- Court.Oneof theorgans bound togive effect ίο ajudgment un­ der para. 4

Art. 146

is the Court

law. Could it be argued that theobligation

a civil Court to heed and give effect toa judgment given under Art. 146.4(b) for thepurposes

awarding damages under para. 6

thesame article could be made depen20 dent oncompliance with Ord.42A; The mere asking

the ques­ tion suggests anegative answer and so it is. We conclude, contrary to the view taken by the learned trial judge, thattheobligation to active compliance cast by para. 5

Art.146

is in no way dependent on observance

the provisions

Ord.42A. Theappeal is allowed. A datewill be given for hearing themerits

theapplication. SAVVIDES J. :This is an appeal from thejudgment

a Jugde

this Courtsitting in thefirst instance whereaby he dismissed anapplicationby theappellants seeking:30 (a) An order

the Court ordering the imprisonment

the Chief

Police for contemptof Court. (b)Judgment and/ordeclaration

theCourtthatthe continued 649 Savvides J. Kyriacou v. Minister

Interior

theChief

Police that theinterested parties bear the rank

a Sergeant Constitutes contempt

Court. Thefacts

thecaseappear inthejudgmentofthelearnedtrial Judge and I need not repeat them (see Kyriacou and Others v. 5 The Republic

the Court given under paragraph 4(b)

Article 146of the

Constitution are

adeclaratory nature and therefore noproceedings for contempt could betaken against theAdministration for non-compliance. He 10 went further, however, and considered the procedural requirements for contempt proceedings and came totheconclusion that in thepresent case there had been compliance with theprerequisitesof theCivilProcedure Rulesandin particularO.42(A). The questions which posefor consideration in the present appeal arethe following:- 15 (a) Whether contempt proceedings lie in respect

noncompliance by theadministration with adeclaratoryjudgment under Article 146.4 (b)

the Constitution. (b)Whether theprocedure followed in thepresent case wasin 20 compliance with theCivil Procedure Rules. Before proceedings with the first question which touches the merits

the case I shall deal with the second question, that is, whether the procedure contemplated for attachment for contempt has been complied with toenable theappellants proceed with the 25 substanceof theirapplication. In order tohold that aperson hascommitted contempt, certain prerequisites have tobe satisfied first. It mustbe established that the terms

theorderorjudgment areclearand unambiguous and that therespondent hasproper noticeof such term.Asit washeld 30 in Husson v. Husson [1962] 3All E.R. 1056: 650 3 CL.R. Kyriacou v. Minister

Interior Savvides J. "A person cannot be held guilty

contempt in infringing an orderofthe Courtof which heknowsnothing." In Evangelou &. Others v.C.B.C.

dealing with this matter and I fully adoptwhatIsaid inthatcase. Rule 18of theSupremeConstitutional Court Rules 1962,provides asfollows:- 10 "The CivilProcedure Rules inforce in theRepublicon the dateof themaking

theseRules shall apply,mutatismutandis,toallproceedings before theCourtsofar ascircumstances permitor unlessother provision hasbeen madeby these Rules or unless theCourt orany Judgeotherwisedirects." ,c The effect

such rule is that the Civil Procedure Rules are deemed toapply mutatis mutandis toproceedings in the Supreme Courtinitsrevisionaljurisdiction.Therelevantorder,

theCivil Procedure Rules dealing with this matter, is Order 42 Awhich, inter alia,provides:"1. Where any order is issued by any Court directing any acttobedoneorprohibiting thedoingof any actthere shall be endorsed by the Registrar on the copy

it, to be served on theperson required toobey it, amemorandum in thewordsor totheeffect following: 'If you, the within-named A.B.,neglect toobey this order, bythetimetherein limited,you willbeliabletobearrested and tohave yourproperty sequestered.' 2.Anoffice copyof theorder shall beserved on theperson towhom theorderisdirected.The,service shall, unless other- wisedirected by theCourtor aJudge,bepersonal." ™ Inthemarginal notetosuchorderreference ismadetothecorresponding old English Rule,Order 41, rule 5,which, to theextent relevant to thepresent case,reads as follows (Annual Practice, 1960,p.954):651 Savvides J. Kyriacou v. Minister

Interior

execution for the purpose

compelling you to IQ obeythesamejudgment (ororder)." Asone may notice from the wording both

Order42 Aof our Civil Procedure Rules and Order 41 rule 5of the English Rules,especiallytheexpressions "thereshallbeendorsed","shall beserved," "shallstatethetime,"compliancewiththeprovisions 15

suchorderismandatory. In the notes to theEnglish Order 41, rule 5,weread thefollowing(seeAnnualPractice, 1960,atp.956):"Anattachmentofapersonfordisobediencetoanorderrequiringhimtodoagivenactwithinagiventimewillnotbedi- 20 rected unlessacopyof theorder,withaproperendorsement, hasbeenpersonally serveduponhiminduetime,orunlesshe hashadnoticeoftheorderandisevadingservicethereof." Itisanundisputed fact inthepresentcasethattherequirements setoutinOrder42Aasregardsserviceandendorsement

the 25 orderhavenotbeencomplied with.Therehasnotbeenpersonal servicesuchasdefined byOrder5ofourCivilProcedureRules, asservicebydouble-registeredletterorotherwiseisconsideredin rule9thereof,assubstituted serviceandnotpersonal.Secondly, therespondent wasnot served withaproperlyendorsedcopyof 30 thejudgmentwiththeappropriatenotice,asitisprovidedbyOrder42A,rule1. 652 3 CL.R. Kyriacou v. Minister

Interior Sawides J. Ifind myselfinagreementwiththefinding

thelearnedtrial Judgeonthisissue.Therefore, onthisground alone,thepresent appealhastobedismissed. 5 Havingfound asabove,Ifind itunnecessary todeal withthe questionastowhethercontemptproceedingscanbetakenincasesofdeclaratoryjudgmentsunderArticle 146.4(b)

theConstitution. Intheresult, theappealfails andisherebydismissed withno orderforcosts. 10 MALACHTOS,J.:Iagreewiththejudgmentdelivered bymy brotherJudgeSawides whichIhadtheadvantagetoread inadvanceandIhavenothingtoadd. Appealallowedbymajority. Noorderasto costs. 653