clr/1988/1988_3_81.pdf

(87). Executoryact—Informative acl·—Letterinforming applicantofcontentsofa law. ConstitutionalityofLaws—Courtsshouldrefrainonpronouncingon suchan issue, unless itsresolution isindispensablefor thedetermination ofthe 5 proceedings. Theapplicantistheownerofprivateschoolfor thetuitionofEnglish registered underthePrivateSchoolsLaw(Law5/71asamendedbyLaw 56/83).SheisalsothedirectoroftheschoolandteachesEnglishattheInstitute. 10 Byletterdated3.2.87theapplicantwasinformed thatinvirtueofthe saidlawshewouldnotbequalified after reachingtheageof68eithertobe theprincipaloforateacheratherschool. Applicantobjected tothiscommunication,buttheMinistry ofEducationdismissed theobjection informing herthattheir"decision"couldnot 81 Christofidou v. Republic

(1988)bereversed.Whereupontheapplicantmountedthepresentproceedingsfor areviewofthelegalityofthedecisioncommunicatedon3.2.87. Held,dismissingtherecourse:

(1)Theletterof3.6.87doesnotpurport eithertodefinethestatusorpositionoftheapplicantor,byaprocessofexerciseofdiscretionary power,readjustit.Itdoesnomorethanremindthe 5 applicantoftheprovisionsofthelaw.Theactcomplainedofisplainlyofa nonexecutorycharacter.

(2)Only acts productive of legal consequence*-ere cognizable bya courtof revisionaljurisdiction.Actsinfonnatory of theexistenceof alegalorfactual situationarenotexecutoryfortheobviousreasonthatthey 10 donothavenoticeablelegalconsequences.Theymerelyasserttheexistence ofasituation objectively identifiable. Infonnatory actsdonotinvolvethe exerciseofanydiscretionarypowers. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 15 Casesreferredto: Karapatakiv.Republic

(1982)3C.L.R.88; Costea v. Republic

(1983)3C.L.R.115; Voricas v.Republic

(1984)3C.L.R. 763; Economides v.Republic

(1980)3 C.L.R.219; 20 loannouv.Republic

(1982)3C.L.R.1002; Spyrouv.Republic

(1983)3C.L.R.354; Phylactides v.Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R.1328; Decision oftheGreekCouncilofStateNo.324/69; Josephinv.Republic

(1986)3C.L.R. 111; Charalambousv.Republic

(1986)3C.L.R.557; Hoppiv.TheRepublic

(1972)3C.L.R. 269. 82 25 3 C.L.R. Christofidou v. Republic Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondentwhereby the applicant was informed thatafter shereached theage of 68 she would nothequalified tobethePrincipalof orateacherofher 5 school. Λ.S. AngelideSy for the applicant. R.Petridou(Mrs), for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. The applicant is the 10 ownerof aprivate schoolfor thetuitionofEnglish, registered un­ der the Private Schools Law.* She is also the director of the schoolandteachesEnglish atthe Institute. Duringtheschoolyearpreceding theattainment by theappli­ cant of theage of 68, she was informed thatshe would notbe 15 qualified after reachingthatage eithertobetheprincipalof or a teacher at her school. The letter informed her of nomore than what sheought tohave known,namely,thecontent of therele­ vant provisions of thelaw underwhich herschool was licensed as aprivate tuitioncentre; notably,thoseof s.18

(4)of the law. 20 Theletterhadbeenaddressed toheron3.2.87.Applicant object­ ed tothiscommunicationandaddressed, throughhercounsel, a letter totheAuthorities, seekingareversal of the "decision"on grounds of unconstitutionality of the law upon which it was founded, citing articles 20, 25, 26 and 28 of theConstitution. 25 TheMinistry of Education dismissed thesuggestion, informing her thattheir "decision" could notbe reversed.Whereupon the applicantmountedthepresentproceedings for areviewof the le­ galityof thedecisioncommunicatedon3.2.87, thesubjectmatter of theseproceedings.Therespondentsdisputed thejusticiability 30 ofthesubject matteroftheproceedingsonthegroundthatthe act challenged was notexecutory andas suchcouldnotbemade the subject of review. Inthe contentionof counsel for therespon­ dents the decision communicatedon 3.2.87 was nothing but *Law Sf71- as amendedbyLaw 53/83. 83 PikLs J. Christofidou v. Republic

(1988)aninformatory actdesigned toremindtheapplicantof herduties underthe law. Aside from this preliminary issue, we are required, by the termsof therecourse andtheoppositionthereto,todetermine,if necessary, (a) Whether thedecision,if it qualifies asexecutory, was is­ suedinbreachof theprovisions of S.27Aof thePrivate Schools Law,and (b)If reviewable, whetheritwas founded onalaw enacted in breachof theconstitutionalrightsof theapplicant, safeguarded by 10 article20,guaranteeing freedom ofeducation,article25, uphold­ ingfreedomtopracticeaprofession orcarryonatrade,article26, establishing freedom of contractand,lastly,article28, entrench­ ingequality before thelaw andtheAdministration. Thefirst issuewe mustresolve is thejusticiability of there- 15 course. Only executory acts are subject toreview underarticle 146.1 of theConstitution,thatis,actsyielding legalconsequencesdeter­ minativeof the status andpositionof thesubject underthe law. Ourtaskwill belightenedif wereproducetherelevant communi- 20 cationallegedlyembodying anexecutoryact: "Σύμφωνα με τον περί Ιδιωτικών Σχολείων και Φροντιστηρίων Νόμοκανένας εκπαιδευτικός δενμπορεί να διευθύνει ή διδάξει σε ιδιωτικόφροντιστήριοεφόσο έχεισυμπληρώσειτοεξηκοστόόγδοοέτοςτηςηλικίαςτου. 25 Επομένως μετηλήξητουπαρόντοςσχολικούέτους δεν θα δικαιούστε να διευθύνετε ή / και διδάσκετε σε φροντιστήριο. 84 5 3 CX.R. Christofidou v. Republic Pikis J. Συμβουλεύσθε να συμμορφωθείτεμε τις πρόνοιεςτου πιο πάνω Νόμου." EnglishTranslation: £ "In accordance with the Private Schools and Institutions Law noeducationalist is allowed todirector teachatsuchpri­ vate institution after hecompletes thesixty-eighth year of his age. Consequently, after theend of thecurrent school year you willnotbeentitled todirectorteach atthe institution. 10 You are advised tocomply with theprovisions of the afore­ mentioned Law." The letterdoes notpurporteither todefine the status or posi­ tion of the applicantor,by aprocess of exercise of discretionary power, readjust it. Itdoes nomore thanremind the applicant of 15 theprovisions of thelaw in thecontext, nodoubt,of apolicy to remind those affected by thestatuteof theduty toobserve them. To my mindtheactcomplained of is plainly of a nonexecutory character andas as such beyond therevisional jurisdiction of this Court. 20 Timeand again it has been asserted thatactsproductive of le­ gal consequences are cognizable by acourtof revisional jurisdic­ tion*.Acts informatory of theexistence of alegal orfactual situa­ tion are notexecutory** for theobvious reason that they donot have noticeablelegal consequences.They merely assert theexis25 tence of a situation objectivety identifiable. Informatory acts do notinvolve theexercise of any discretionary powers. Inmy judg­ ment the subject matterof these proceedings does notconstitute an executory act and as such it is inamenable tojudicial review. * (See, inter alia, Karapataki v. Republic

(1982)3 CL.R. 88; Costea v. Republic

(1983)3 CL.R. 115; Vorkasv. Republic

(1984)3 CLJt. 763). ** (See,interalia, Economidesv. Republic

(1980)3 CLJt. 219; Ioannou v.Republic

(1982)3 CLJt. 1002; Spyrou v. Republic

(1983)3 CLJt. 354; Phylactides v. Republic

(1984)3 CLJt. 1328; Decision of the Greek Councilof State No. 324169). 85 Fikis J. Christofidou v. Republic

(1988)Iftheapplicantwishestopetition theMinisterunderS.27Aofthe lawfor arelaxationoftheprovisionsof s.18

(4),sheisnodoubt freetodoso.Theremindertotheapplicantofthecurrentstateof thelaw,inparticulartheprovisionsof section 18

(4)innoway prejudicestheoutcomeofanysuchapplicationthatmaybemade 5 totheMinister. In view of mydecision, noneed arisestopronounce onthe constitutionality oftheprovisionsofs.18

(4).Itisfirmlysettled* thatquestionsaffecting theconstitutionality ofalawshouldnot be gone into and thecourt should refrain from making a pro- 10 nouncement on anissueofconstitutionality unlessresolutionof theissueisindispensableforthedeterminationoftheproceeding. Intheinterestofcompletenessofthisjudgment,wemaymention thatthequestionofconstitutionalityoftheprovisionsofs. 18

(4)wasthesubject ofdebateanddetermination inCostasM.Hoppi 15 v.Republic**. Inthelightoftheabovetherecourseisdismissed.Lettherebe noorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. 20 *(See,interalia,Josephinv.Republic

(1986)3CLJt. Ill; Charalambousv.Republic

(1986)3 CLJt. 557). **

(1972)3 CLJt. 269. 86