(1988)1988April16 [A.LOIZOU,P.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION TAKIS EFTHYVOULOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo.994185). Abatement of recourse for annulment—Revocation of sub judice act— Principles governing effect of revocation—Strakka Ltd. v. The Republic
(1988)3 C.L.R. 760, adopted—Burden ofproving adverse consequences ordamagesordetrimentorprejudiceduringthetimeoftheoperation ofthe subjudice act—Lies on theapplicant—Absence ofevidencetothateffect— Recourse against subjudice transfer of applicant (which in the meantime had beenrevoked) dismissed. 5 The facts of this case appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Court Recoursedismissed. No orderasto costs. 10 Casesreferredto: Strakka Ltd. v.The Republic
(1988)3C.L.R.760; Agrotis v. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1397 Neocleous v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 81; 776 15 3 C.L.R. Efthyvoulou v. Republic Papamichaelv. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R.2038; Evlogimenos v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2042; . Papantoniouv. TheRepublic (\?&$)3C.L.R. 120-, Recourse. RecourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttotransferapplicantfromThirdGymnasiumPaphostoPanayiaGymnasium. L.Papaphilippou,fortheapplicant. R. Vrahimi-Petridou(Mrs.),fortherespondent. . 10 15 < Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOUP.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantin thisrecoursepraysfor:"(A)AdeclarationoftheCourtthattheactand/ordecision of the respondents to transfer the applicant from the Third GymnasiumPaphos,toPanayiaGymnasium,isnullandvoid, contrarytoLawandofnolegaleffect whatsoever. • (B)AdeclarationoftheCourtthattheactand/ordecisionof therespondents to reject the applicant's objection agaist his , transferisnullandvoid,contrarytoLawandofnolegaleffect whatsoever." 20 Beforedealingwiththefacts andhistoryof thiscaseIfind it expedienttostatethatthiscasewasuntilthe2ndFebruary,1988, beingdealtwithbyH.H.JusticeLoris'.Following hisimpending retirement,however,thecasehasbeenassignedtomewhereuponImadeonthe24thMarch,1988,thefollowing directioninthe presenceofcounsel:- , - 25 "Itisherebydirectedwiththeconsentofthepartiesthatthis 777 A. Loizou P. Efthyvoulou v. Republic
(1988)case which was before H.H. Justice Loris will be heard de novo by me and everything filed already will bedeemed to havebeenfiled before thisCourt." After the above direction both counsel stated that they had nothingtoaddandthereupon Ireservedjudgment. 5 I shall now deal with the history of this case.The recourse wasfiled onthe23rdNovember, 1985, andtheoppositiononthe 27th January, 1986.Itwasfixedfordirectionsonthe28thJanuary, 1986,on which datedirectionsfor thefiling of written addresses weregiven and thecasewasfixed for further directions \Q onthe22ndApril, 1986.Thewrittenaddressonbehalfoftheapplicant was filed on the 22nd April, 1986.Onthis date learned counsel for therespondent applied "for extension of timewitha view tofiling the written address on behalf of therespondent". Shewasgiven tourweeks'timefor thepurposeandthecasewas 15 then adjourned for further directions to the4th June, 1986.On this date learned counsel for therespondent madethe following statement: "Thesubjudice decision hasbeenrevoked bymeans of adecision of theCommission datedthe23rd April, 1986followingthejudgment in RecourseNo.813/85,SotirisAristidesv. -n TheRepublic", whereupon learned counsel for theapplicantappliedforanadjournment inordertocontacthisclientandthecase was adjourned for mention tothe 7th July, 1986.On this date learnedcounselfortheapplicantappliedforleavetofileasupplementaryaddressontheissueoftherevocationofthedecisionand learnedcounselfor therespondent stated thatshewouldbefiling awrittenaddressalsoonthatissuetoo. TheCourtthenadjourned thecaseforfurther directionsonthe 14thOctober, 1986. The supplementary addresson thisissueofrevocation,how- -« ever, had not been filed by the 14th October, 1986,nor by the 16thDecember, 1986,which wasthedatethat wasfiled for this purpose andthecasewasfixed forfurther directionsonthe24th February, 1987.Onthislatterdate,learnedcounselfortheappli778 3 C.L.R. Efthyvoulou v. Republic A. Loizou P. cantstated thathewould notbefiling asupplementary address. Learned counsel for therespondents,however, stated that she would befiling awritten address andlearnedcounselfor the ap plicantreserved hisrighttofileareply,if necessary. TheCourtmade thefollowing direction:"Case adjourned to the2ndMay, 1987 for further directions.Written address onbe half of therespondenttobefiled within four weeksfrom to-day, Reply,if any,twoweeks thereafter." 1 Thewritten address onbehalf of therespondenthadnot been filed by the2nd May, 1987, norby the3rdJuly, 1987, andthe 6th October, 1987,which were thedatesonwhich thecase was adjourned for further directionswith aviewtofiling thewritten address onbehalf of therespondent;Theaddress inquestion was eventually filed onthe2ndDecember, 1987,andlearnedcounsel for theapplicantwas given twoweekstofile his written address inreply andthecase was fixed onthe5th March,1988,andthe address inreply was filed on23rd March, 1988,andonthe 24th March, 1988, the aforementioned direction was made for the hearingdenovoof thiscaseby thisCourt. i:. :* All threewritten addresses whichhave beenfileddeal exclu sively with.the meritsof this recourse andnone of themmakes anyreference totherevocationof thesubjudice actand-thecon sequencesoreffects of suchrevocationonthisrecourse. '•". Regarding this aspect of the'matterit should be addedthat learnedcounselfor theapplicantwas,onhisapplication,granted repeatedadjournmentsinordertofileasupplementary writtenad dress ontheissue of therevocationof thedecision. .·Theprinciplesgoverning theeffect ofrevocationof the»subju : diceacthavebeenstated by thisCourt intherecentcaseofStrak-' ka Limited v. The Republic,
(1988)3.C.L.R.760.They are adoptedandneednotberepeatedherein." >'. · · • V. ' ' · ' . .'''ι '··; *'.r ι .** : . " - '" >'"".•;*".* ." ' •'-•£' . AlsoinAgrotisv.The Republic (19^3)3 C.L.R. 1397·, Man779 A. Loizou P. Efthyvoulou v. Republic
(1988)tafyllides, P. ,indealingwiththesamemattermadereferenceto thepositionapplicableinGreecewheretheredoesnotexistaprovision such as theone wehaveinCyprusin theform of Article 146.6oftheConstitution andcocludedasfollowsatp.1402:"OfcourseinCyprustheprinciplehasbeendulyfollowed 5 asinGreecethatwhereanactoflimiteddurationhasceasedto exist without havingproduced before ceasing tobeoperative anyadverseconsequencesfortheapplicanttherecoursewhich wasmade against it isabated becauseif therearenoadverse consequences of such act noneed to annul itin viewof the IQ provisionsofArticle 146.6wouldarise.(SeeinteraliaMalliotisv.MunicipalityofNicosia
(1965)3C.L.R.p.75atpp. 94, 95; Vapheadesv. The GreekCommunal Chamber
(1966)3 C.L.R. 197, 199, and Andreou v. The Republic
(1975)3 C.L.R. 108, 110." 15 As I held in Strakka case(supra) the burden of proving adverse consequencesordamageordetriment orprejudice during thetimethesubjudice actwasinoperation lieson theapplicant. In thiscasesuch aproof hasnotcomefrom theapplicant noris there any evidence before me,from any source whatsoever, of 2n the existence of adverse consequences, damage, detriment or prejudice.Therefore,noneedfortheannulmentofthesubjudice actarises. IntheresultIholdthattherecoursehasbeenabatedduetothe disappearance of its subject matter which disappearance was brought about by meansof therevocation of the subjudiceact andmustbedismissed. 2s ImightaddthatthiscaseisdistinguishablefromNeocleousv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.81;Papamichaelv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 2038;Evlogimenos v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 30 C.L.R.2042andPapantoniouv.TheRepublic,
(1988)3C.L.R. 320in whichLorisJ., indealingwiththesamesituation -revocation ofthesubjudicedecision,reachedtheconclusion thatthe applicant mightbeentitled toredressunderArticle 146.6ofthe 780 3 C.L.R. Efthyvoulou v. Republic A. Loizou P. Constitution,ifsuccessful intheRecourse. 5 10 The ground for the distinction is this:- In all the aforementioned cases,contrary to what happened in this case, notwithstanding.therepeatedopportunitieswhich weregiventocounsel for theapplicant, "learned counsel for theapplicant argued that theapplicantwasentitledtojudgmentonthemeritsinspiteofthe revocationinviewofhisallegation thattheadministrativeactin questionhadproducedresultsbefore ceasingtobeeffective, detrimental toherforwhichshewasentitledtocompensation". Intheresulttherecourseisdismissedbutinthecircumstances therewillbenoorderastocosts: · ' Recoursesdismissed. - Noorderasto costs. . 781