clr/1988/1988_3_921.pdf

(1988)thisCourtunderArt. 146.1oftheConstitution. Recourse dismissed. Casesreferredto: InreAliRalip, 3R.S.C.C.102; Eviogimenos v.The Republic,^ R.S.C.C. 139; 5 Stavrouv.TheRepublic

(1976)3C.L.R. 66; Fekka v.E.A.C.

(1986)1 C.L.R.173; Mavrogenis v.TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R.1140; loannouv. TheRepublic

(1983)3 C.L.R.80; Cases2466/1965oftheGreekCouncilofState. 10 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents not toreissuethechequefor £2,883.33whichwasissued for the benefit oftheapplicantfor paymentonaccountofredundancy. AJLadas, fortheapplicant. 15 A. Papasavvas, SeniorCounsel of theRepublic,for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOUP.readthefollowingjudgmentTheapplicanthas sincethe 16thJune, 1964,beenworkingwith theHellenicMin20 ingCompany (E.M.E.) Onthe 15thJuly 1984his serviceswere terminated on thegroundof redundancy."Followinghisapplication totheRedundancyFund forpaymentonaccountofredundancyonthe30thOctober 1984,theRedundancyFundissuedin his namea cheque (No.25218) for the sumof £2,883.33. The 25 applicant did not cash the saidcheque until the 13thDecember 1985,when byletterof thesamedateherequested from there- 922 3 C.L.R. Michael v. Republic A. Loizou P. spondentstore-issuethecheque.Inreplythelatterinformed the applicant that "under Regulation 14of theTermination ofEmployment (Redundancy Fund)Regulations. 1977whenaperson in whose name a cheque was issued does not cash within six 5 monthsfromthedateof its issuethenheloseshisrighttopaymentsand that theperiod of six monthsmaybeextended fora further period of six monthsif there isreasonable causefor the delay".The applicant wasfurther informed that morethan one year'stimehadelapsed sincethedateoftheissueofthecheque 10 and,therefore,byvirtueofthesaidRegulation 14,hehadlosthis right topaymentanditwasnotpossibletorenewthevalidityof thechequeinquestionortomakeanewpayment tohimdueto redundancy. Asaresultoftheabovestandoftherespondents,theapplicant 15 filed thepresentrecoursewherebyhepraysforthefollowingrelief: 20 "(a)Adeclaration of theCourt that thedecision of therespondentsnottore-issuethechequefor£2,883.33,whichwas issuedforthebenefitoftheapplicant,asappearingintheletter ofthe19thDecember 1984,isnullandvoidandofnolegal effect whatsoever. , (b)Adeclaration of theCourt that theomission of therespondents to re-issue the said cheque is null and void and whateverhasbeenomittedshouldhavebeenperformed." 25 Learnedcounselfortherespondentsraised thepreliminaryobjectionthatthesubjudiceactand/oromissiondoesnotfall within' theframe-workofanexecutoryadministrativeactwhichisprovidedbyArticle 146oftheConstitution becauseitisaliquidated "monetarydispute". 30 Themaincontentionsofcounselfortheapplicantwere: (a)ThatthesaidRegulation 14

(2)isunconstitutionalasbeing contrarytoarticle23

(1)and

(2)oftheConstitution. 923 A. Loizou P. Michael v. Republic

(1988)(b)That the said Regulation 14

(2)isultra vires theenabling, enactment Elaborating on contention (a) above learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from themoment theright-ofa beneficiary -topayment from theFund hasbeen ascertained and crystal- . 5 lized as being acertain amount, such amount or the right of collection thereof as a debt of the Fund to the beneficiaries, constitutes property of the beneficiary within themeaning of the term "property" in Article 23

(1)of the Constitution; and that the result of Regulation 14

(2)isthedeprivation ofproperty contrary 10 to Article 23

(2)of the Constitution. Learned counsel cited insupport of his above submission the case of In re Ali Ratip, 3 R.S.C.C. 102, at p. 104, and the case of Evlogimenos v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C.139, in which it was held that the right of property which is safeguarded by Article 23of theConstitution, "is 15 not arightin abstracto but arightasdefined andregulated bythe law relating tocivil lawrightsinproperty and theword 'property' in paragraph 1 of Article 23 hastobe understood and interpreted in this sense". It was further held that paragraph 2 of Article 23 "protects the aforesaid right to property from deprivation or re- 20 striction orlimitation effected intheinterestsof theStateorPublic Bodies and not merely under a lawregulating civil law rights in property." Anothersubmission oflearnedcounsel wasthattherighttopay- . mentof aparticular debt,which atCommon Lawiscalled "chose 25 in action"constitutespropertyof thebeneficiary. Hefinally submitted that theprovisions of Regulation 14

(2)cannot be considered as "regulatingcivil lawrightstoproperty"aswasdecidedin theEvlogimenos case with regard tosection 24ofthe Immovable Property (Tenure,Registration andValuation) Law,Cap.224,be- 30 cause they clearly fall within the sphereof administrative law as well as within the sphere of public law because they refer to the relationsbetween theadministration andthesubject andnottorelationsbetween citizens. I shall first deal with thepreliminary objection. Before stating 35 thelaw thereon Imustremind thepartiesthat this Court in Stav924 3 C.L.R. Michael v. Republic A. Loizou P. rou v. The Republic

(1976)3 C.L.R. 66 has exactly dealt with the same situation. It must be added though that in the Stavrou case the question of the justiciability of the recourse had not been raised. 5 The question of justiciability of a money dispute was dealt with as follows by Loris, J., in Mavrogenis v. The Republic

(1984)3C.L.R. 1140 at pp. 1145-1146:- "Therespondentsin theiropposition raisethepreliminary objection that thedecisionimpugneddoesnotconstitutearfadminis10 trativedecision within theambit of Article 146.1of the Constitution, but simply refers to 'monetary dispute*which falls within theambitofprivatelaw,anditistherefore notjusticiable. As the above objection goes tothe root of-thejurisdiction of thisCourt Ishall bedealing with it first. 15 It washeld asearly as 1962(AchilleasHjiKyriakouandTheologia HjiApostolou, 3 R.S.C.C. 89) that "an act or decision' in the senseofparagraph 1 of the Article 146isanactordecision in thedomain only of public lawand notan actordecision of apublicofficer in thedomain ofprivate law. 20 Ever after this principle was reiterated in a number of cases (Valana v. Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 91,Aspoftas v. The Republic

(1973)3 C.L.R. 366,Republic v. M.D.M Estate Developments Ltd. ,

(1982)3 C.L.R. 642, Charalambides v. The Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 403,Chiratis v. The Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 25 540, Tekkis & Another v. The Republic (1982; 3 C.L.R. 680; ' and most recently by the Full Bench in the case of Galanos v. CBC

(1984)3 C.L.R. 742). Ofcourseitis 'primarily thenatureandcharacterofaparticular actordecision which determines whether or not such actordeci30 sioncomes within the scopeof paragraph 1 of theAnicle 146of the Constitution -The sameorgan may beactingeither in thedomain of private lawor in thedomain of public lawdependingon 925 A. Loizou P. Michael v. Republic

(1988)the natureof its action'-{TheGreekRegistrarof the Co-operative Societies v. Nicos Nicolaides

(1965)3 C.L.R. 164). Thus in thecase of Galanos v. CM.C. (supra) it was held by the mijority of theFullBenchof this Courtthat'Infixingthe pric­ es for thetimeof advertisements andinapplying auniform stan- -5 dardpracticeas totheadvertisements ontelevision, the Corpora­ tion is not exercising an imperium but only it operates as a commercial enterprise in thedomainof private law-'. · According to the case law of the Greek Council of State the dispute as totheexistence ornotof amonetaryclaimconstitutesa 10 monetary dispute which falls within thejurisdiction of thecivil Courts (vide Dagtoglou on GeneralAdministrative Law 1981 ed. Volume Γ atpages 268-269). Evenincases of monetarydisputes emanatingfromaunilateral actof theAdministration,effected onthebasis of rules of admin- 15 istrative law, when the object of the dispute is eliminated to a claim of a specified amountof moneyandthereis nootherreper­ cussion from theadministrative actattacked,thecompetencevests with thecivil Courts (vide theDecisions of theGreekCouncilof State 1929-1959 at p. 235). 20 In the work of Tsatsos Administration and Law 1979 ed. at pages 263 to 265, where' thedevelopments of case Law onmo­ netary dipsutes' are being examined, it is clearly stated that the modern case law employs theterm'monetarydispute'inorderto denote thejurisdiction of thecivil Courts totheexclusion of the 25 jurisdiction of the Greek Council of State' toadjudge on such a dispute1 (vide 2nd paragraph at page 264). Inthis connectionre­ ference is made to thecase of theGreek Councilof State Σ.Τ.Ε. 930/38 where itis stated verbatin that 'Διοικητικού πράξεις παρέχουσαι λαβήν εις απλάς 30 χρηματικός διαφοράς - δεν είναι προσβληταίδι* αιτήσεως ακυρώσεως, μονάδετααστικά Δικαστήρια είναι αρμόδιανα επιλύσωσι ταςδιαφοράς ταύτας 1 . 926 3 C.L.R. Michael v. Republic A. Loizou P. ('Administrativeacts givingrisetosimplemonetary disputes are not amenable to a recourse for annulment, only the Civil Courts are appropriate tosolvethese disputes).' " • In Case No2466/1965of theGreek Council of State the Ad5 ministration rejected theclaim of theapplicants for therefund to themof acertain amountof money ontheground thattheclaim againsttheadministration hassince 1954 beenprescribed inview of theprovisionsof thePublic Accounts Law (section 69of Law 218). The relavant part of this decision of theGreek Councilof 10 Statereads: 15 2ο 25 30 35 "Εξ άλλου ηΔιοίκησις, ως δείκνυταιεκ τωνπροσβαλ­ λόμενων πράξεων,απέρριψε το αίτημαπερί αποδόσεως τουανωτέρωχρηματικούποσού,επίτωλόγω ότιη τοιαύτη εις βάρος του Δημοσίου αξίωσις έχει υποκύψει απότου έτους 1954 εις τηνπενταετήπαραγραφην του νόμου περί δημοσίου λογιστικού (άρθρον69 Ν.218), διαδε της υπό κρίσιν αιτήσεως αμφισβητείταιηνομιμότης τηςαιτιολο­ γίας ταύτης και,ειδικώτερον,υποστηρίζεταιότι η ανωτέ­ ρωυποχρέωσιςδενυπόκειταιειςπαραγραφην.Η τοιαύτη όμως αμφισβήτησις, αναφερομένη εις το εάν.η υπό τας ανωτέρωσυνθήκαςπροκύψασαυποχρέωσιςτουΔημοσίου προς απόδοσινωρισμένου χρηματικούποσούυπέκυψενή μηειςτηνπενταετήπαραγραφηντουνόμουπερίδημοσίου λογιστικού, συνιστά προδήλως χρηματικήν διαφοράν, η επίλυσιςτηςοποίας υπάγεταιεις τηναποκλειστικήναρμο­ διότητατωνπολιτικώνδικαστηρίων,δι'οκαιη υπόκρίσιν αίτησις, λόγω αναρμοδιότητας του δικαστηρίουτούτου, απορριπτέα,ωςαπαράδεκτος". (" Ontheother handtheadministration as appearing from thesubjudice acts,rejected theclaim for therefund,of thesaid amount,on the ground that such claim against the state has since 1954 yieldedtothefive yearsprescription of thePublic Accounts Law (section 69 Law 218) and by means of the present application the,legality of thisreasoning is questioned and,particularly ,it is argued thattheaboveobligation isnot 927 A. Loizou P. Michael v. Republic

(1988)subject toprescription. Such dispute which refers tothequestion whether the obligation of the State to refund a certain amount, which has emanated under the above circumstances has yielded or not to the five years prescription of the Public Accounts Law manifestly constitutes a monetary dispute, the 5 resolving of which comes within theexclusivejurisdiction of the Civil Courts and for this reason this application must be dismissed as unacceptable due to lack ofjurisdiction of this Court.)" What wasthereasoning of thesubjudiceactin thiscase?That 10 under Regulation 14of theTermination ofEmployment (Redundancy Fund) Regulations, 1977,"When a person in whose name a cheque has been issued does notcash same within six months, then he loses his right to payment". In other words the regulations provided for prescription orextinguishment of the right to 15 payment if same is notexercised within six months.And what is the applicant seeking by meansof therecourse? Hemerelyquestions thelegality of theabove reasoning. Suchquestioning, however, refers to the question whether the right of applicant to be paid acertain amount - in thiscase£2,888.33 by the administra- 20 tion has been extinguished orprescribed -on account of theprovisionsof thesaid Regulation 14

(2).Therefore applying theprinciplesenumerated intheabovecaseof theGreek Council of State I hold that the subject matter of therecourse constitutes amonetary dispute which falls within thejurisdiction of thecivil Courts. 25 This recourse should therefore fail as unacceptable due tolackof jurisdiction of this Court. It should be added that in Ioannou v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 80 the Full Bench of this Court dealt with an appeal against the dismissal of a recourse in whigh the sole issue was 30 whether Regulations9 and 10oftheGovernmentLotteries Regulations 1956,providing for theperiod within which paymentsof winning tickets could be made, were ultra vires the Lotteries Law, Cap. 74. Again in that case, however, the question of the jurisdiction oftheCourt hasnotbeenraised. ^5 928 3 C.L.R. Michael v. Republic Λ. Loizou P. HavingreachedthisconclusionIneednotproceedtoexamine the merits of therecourse, suffice it to say, however, thatthe question of theconstitutionalityof periods of limitation was ex­ tensively examined inthecaseof Fekka v. TheElectricity Au5 thorityof Cyprus

(1968)1C.L.R. 173 and reference is made thereintoanumberof decidedcases, bothCypriot andAmerican and it may be useful to consider what was said therein,if and whentheconstitutionalityofsuchandrelevantmattersarise. Intheresulttherecoursefailsduetolackof jurisdiction. 10 Recoursedismissed. 929