3 C.L.R. 1988April20 [DEMETRIADES,J.] , ' INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION DEMETRAKISLOUCA, Applicant, v. 1.THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEDIRECTOROFSPECIAL SERVICE FORTHECAREANDREHABILITATIONOFDISPLACEDPERSONS, 2.THE ATTORNEY -GENERAL OFTHEREPUBLIC, Respondents. (CaseNo. 353/83). Timewithinwhichtofilearecourseunder Art. 146.3—No evidencethatrelevantletterwasposted or received,whilstapplicant sworeanaffidavit that he never received it—Timedid not begin torun prior to the receipt of a copyofsuch letter,following an inquiry by theapplicant asto thefate of hisapplication. Executoryact—Confirmatoryact—A confirmatoryactcannotbechallengedby arecourse. Thefacts of thiscasesufficiently appear from thejudgment of theCourt Recoursedismissed No orderas to costs. 10 Casesreferredto: Constantinides v.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.644; Markides v.TheRepublic,
(1984)3C.L.R.1581. 807
(1988)Loucav.Republic Recourse. Recourse against therefusal of therespondents togrant applicantarefugee identity card. P.Angelides, for the applicant. Ch. Kyriakides, Counsel oftheRepublic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment. In the present case the applicant complains against thedismissal of his application for thegrant tohimof arefugee identitycard. The applicant isa teacherofelementary education andcomes JQ from Peristeronopighi village of Famagusta District, which is now under theTurkish military occupation. During theperiod 1973- 1974theapplicant and hiswife, who is also a teacher, were serving as teachers at the elementary school of Lysi, another village now occupied by theTurkish InvadingForces, and were residing in arented house at Peristeronopighi. ^ It is an undisputed fact that in June 1974, that is before the Turkish invasion, theapplicant removed all hisbelongings, thatis this furniture and household effects, from Peristeronopighi toone 20 of two houses owned by him and situated at Akropolis area of Nicosia town. Itisthecaseof theapplicant thatthereason heremoved hisbelongings to his house in Nicosia,which apparently was vacant, was because he intended to find a more suitable house for his 25 family atPeristeronopighi andthen takethem back tothatvillage. 808 3 C.L.R. 5 Louca v. Republic Demetriades J. On the 16th July, 1976, the applicant applied to the first re spondents for thegrant tohimof arefugee identity card. His said application was rejected on the29th August, 1976, onthe ground that before theTurkish invasion he was residing atNicosia where hehadremoved all his household effects. On the25th August, 1982, theapplicant applied again for the grant tohimof arefugee identity card.This application of his was also rejected on the 16th November, 1982. 10 1$ In August 1983 the applicant visited theoffice of respondent No. 1in order to find out the fate of his application of the 25th August, 1982, as healleged that hehad never received areply to his said application. Hewas thengiven acopy of a letterpurport edly sent to him and dated the 16th November, 1982, which con tainedthesubjudice decision against which theapplicantfiled the present recourse. 2<r Counsel for therespondentsraised two preliminary objections, namely that(a)the present recourse is outof time,as it was filed in violation of theprovisions of Article 146.3 of the Constitution, which provide thatarecourse madetotheSupremeConstitutional Courton acomplaint thatadecision, actetc.of an administrative authority shall be made within seventy-five days of thedate when thedecision or actof such authority cametotheknowledge of the person making therecourse, and (b) thatthe sub judice decision cannot be challenged as it is confirmatory of a previous one on thesamematter. ΟΛ Regarding the first objection, counsel for the respondents argued thatthetimelimit envisaged by Article 146.3 of theCon stitution began to run as soon as the applicant received the letter of the 16th November, 1982, which was posted to his address in Nicosiaon thesame day, 20 As noevidence was produced by therespondents showing to my satisfaction that the said letter was actually sent by themand received by theapplicant, and as on theotherhand the applicant 809 Demetriades J. Louca v. Republic
(1988)stated in hisaffidavit dated the 16th October, 1985,an allegation that stands uncontradicted, that hehad never received such letter, Icannot but accept that theapplicant came toknow ofthecontents of the letter of the 16th November, 1982,in August 1983 when he personally inquired about the fate of his application and was 5 given copy of that letter. In thelight of myfindings, Ihave come totheconclusion that thepresentrecourse was filed within time. „ I now propose to deal with the second preliminary objection raised. Itiswell settled thatonly executory administrative actsordeci- 10 sions are amenable to thejurisdicion of this Court under Article 146of theConstitution and thatconfirmatory actscannot bechallenged for annulment by means of a recourse (see, inter alia, Constantinides v. The Republic,
(1985)3C.L.R. 644, 650,651, and Markides v.The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1581, 1583). 15 From the facts and documents placed before me (see Appendices "A", "B"and "C"attached tothe written address of counsel for the respondents) Ihave nodoubt that the second application of the applicant, that is theonedated the 25th August, 1982,was based onexactly thesamefactsashisfirst application andthatthe 20 subjudice decision isconfirmatory of thedecision reached inrespect of his first application. Itis tobe stressed that the applicant did not reveal that he had madethe same application in 1976,nor did heallegethat hewas notawareofitsoutcome. For the above reasons I find that the recourse must be dismissed. 25 In thecircumstances, Imakenoorder as tocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderasto costs. 810