3 C.L.R. 1988,May9 [STYUANIDES.J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION MONICARODAT, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS,. . 2.THEMINISTEROFINTERIOR, 3.THEMIGRATIONOFFICER, Respondents. (CaseNo.557/85). ProvisionalOrder—Jurisdictiontogrant—Derivesandisincidentaltothecompetence underArt.146—Rule 13oftheSupreme Constitutional Court— RuledoesnotextendtheJurisdictiontograntaprovisionalorder. Provisionalorder—Negativeact—Cannotbesuspended. Provisionalorder—Thenecessaryprerequisitesfor grantingit—Flagrantillegality—What constitutessuch anillegality—Irreparable damage—What constitutessuchadamage—Conflict betweenthepublicandprivateinterest—Formershouldprevail. Aliens—EveryStateiscompetenttoexcludethemfromitsterritory. International Law—Aliens—Receptionof—A matter of discretion— Competencetoexcludethemfromstate'sterritory. ConstitutionalLaw—Fair trial—Constitution,Art. 30—Fairtnal entails the righttoprosecuteacaseandequalityofarms—Whetheritentailsobligation 937.
(1988)Rodat v.Republic toallowanalientoentertheRepublic—Recourseagainstdecisiondeclaring applicantaprohibitedimmigrant—Itappearsthattherecoursewillbedeterminedonthebasisofthematerialinthefile—Modernmeansofcommunicationenableapplicanttoconducthercasefromabroad—NopowertoissueanorderallowingapplicanttoentertheRepublic. 5 Theapplicant wasdeported from theRepublic,havingfirstbeendeclaredaprohibitedimmigrant.Hencethisrecourse. Applicantappliedforaprovisional orderorderingrespondenttoallow hertocometoCyprus,untildeterminationoftherecourse.Theaffidavit in supportof theapplication containedanallegation thatherpresenceinthe 10 countryisnecessarytoenablehertocollectnecessaryparticularsandgive betterinstructions toher advocatefor theprosecution of therecourse.It mustbenotedthattheapplicantdidnotapplytotheAdministrationforentryfortheparticularpurposestatedintheaffidavit ofhercounsel. Inthelightoftheprinciplessummarized inthehereinaboveheadnote, theCourtdismissedtheapplication. 15 Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Georghiades(No. 1)v.TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R.392; Artemiou(No. 2)v.TheRepublic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 562; Seposv.ThePresidentialElectionReturningOfficer
(1968)3C.L.R.82; Georghiou(No. 1)v.Republic
(1968)3C.L.R. 401; Goulelisv.Republic
(1969)3C.L.R.583; Sofocleousv.Republic
(1971)3C.L.R. 345; Miltiadous&Othersv.Republic
(1972)3CUR.341; C.T.C. ConsultantsLtd. v.CyprusTourism Organisation
(1976)3C.L.R. 390; 938 20 3 C.L.R. Rodat v. Republic Tyrokomou v. Republic
(1976)3C.L.R.403; Papacleovoulou v.Republic
(1979)3C.L.R. 223; TikH andOthersv.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R.250; Sofocleousv.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R.360; 5 Frangosά Othersv.Republic
(1982)3C.L.R. 53; Karramv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.199; Colakides &Associates and Othersv.Republic and Others
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1780; Karaliota v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2049; 10 AmandaMargaLtd. v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2583;, Sayighv.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.277; ZakariaNavigationv.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.621; Suleiman v.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.224; Kouppis v. TheRepublic
(1977)2C.L.R.361. ic Application for provisional order. Application foraprovisonal order, ordering,respondents to allowapplicanttoentertheRepublicandstayhereuntilthe final determinationoftherecourseagainstthedeportationorderissued againsther. 20 Chr.Mitsides, for the applicant. A. Vladimirou, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 939 Rodatv.Republic
(1988)STYLIANTDESJ.readthefollowing decision.MonicaRodat, aGermanmanorial,in 1981wasgrantedtemporaryresidenceand employmentpermit. From 1982to 1984shewasgrantedonlytemporaryresidence permitasavisitor. 5 On 16.3.1984 she was granted temporary residence andemploymentpermittoworkasGuestRelationOfficer atGoldenBay Larnaca.Thispermitwasforayearexpiringon15.3.
- Duetoherconductandacts,certaininformation waspassedto CommanderofthePolice. On 12.3.1985theapplicantwasnotified that,ontheexpiryof the aforesaid permit, it would not be renewed and she should make the necessary arrangements for her departure from the country. She failed to comply andcontinued to stay on inCyprus.TheChiefImmigrationOfficer issuedon 13.5.1985aDep- 15 ortation andDetention Order,wereexecutedon18.5.
- Afew dayslater - 10.6.1985-theapplicantfiledthepresent recourse,wherebysheseekstheannulmentofadecisionthat she wasaprohibitedimmigrantandoftheDeportationOrder. Counselfortheapplicanttookoutasummons,wherebyheap- 20 plied for aprovisional order,ordering therespondents toallow hertoentertheareaof theRepublicandstayhereuntilthefinal determinationoftherecourse;and,further,ordertolift theprohibition of herentry tothecountryandnottodeporther,untilthe finaldetermination of thisrecourseandallowfreeentranceand uninterruptedstayoftheapplicantinthiscountry. 25 The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by her counsel.Intheaffidavit itiscontendedthatthesubjudiceadministrativeactsweretaken withoutdueinquiry;thattheyarepunitive measures,they are theproduct ofabuseof power, they are 30 tainted with misconception of fact; theyarecontrary tolawand 940 10 3 C.L.R. Rodatv.Repubic Stylianides J. theresultof wrongexerciseofdiscretionary power. 5 Inthepenultimateparagraphirisdeposed thatherpresence in thecountryisnecessary toenablehertocollectnecessaryparticu larsandgivebetterinstructionstoheradvocate for theprosecutionof therecourse;andfinallythat,if the provisional order is granted,theAdministrationwillsuffer noharm,whereas the ap plicantwillsuffer, if itisnotgiven. Theapplicationwas hotlycontested. 10 Itisbased onArticle 146of theConstitutionandRules 13 and 19of theRulesof theSupremeConstitutional Court. Theprinciplesupon which aprovisional ordermaybegranted aireby nowwellsettledbytheCase-Law of this Court. 15 20 25 30 TheCourtexercisingjurisdiction underArticle 146,canonly assume competencein relation toa matterreferred toit inthe mannerenvisagedtherein.Thejurisdiction tograntaprovisional orderisincidentalthereto.Order 13doesnotextend thejurisdic tion oftheCourtunderArticle
- Article 135 of the Constitution, under which the said Rules weremade, provides thatRulesof Courtshall bemadefor regu lating thePracticeandProcedureof theCourtintheexerciseof thejurisdiction conferred uponitby theConstitution.-(See, inter alia,Cleanthis Georghiades (No.Ϊ)andTheRepublicofCyprus
(1965)3 C.L.R.,392;NicosArtemiou (No. 2) andThe Repub lic of Cyprus
(1966)3 C.L.R., 562; LoizosPhilippouSepos v. ThePresidentialElectionReturning Officer
(1968)3C.L.R.,82; Niki Chr.Georghiou (No.1)v.Republic
(1968)3C.L.R.,401; Soterios Goulelis v.Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. ,583;Sofocles _ Sofocleous v.Republic
(1971)3C.L.R.,345;Georghios Miltiadous&Others v.Republic
(1972)3C.L.R.,341;CJ.C. Con sultantsLtd., v.CyprusTourism Organisation
(1976)3C.L.R., 390; Yiannoulla F. Tyrokomou v. Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. , 403; Papacleovoulou v. Republic
(1979)3C.L.R. ,223; Tikhi 941 StylianidesJ. Rodatv.Republic
(1988)- andOthersv.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R.,250;Sofocleousv.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R. , 360;Frangos andOthers v. Republic
(1982)3C.L.R.53;RiadKarram v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R., 199;Colakides &AssociatesandOthersv.RepublicandOthers
(1985)3C.L.R., 1780;Karaliota v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R., 5 2049;AmandaMargaLtdv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.,2583; Sayighv.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.,277;ZakariaNavigation v. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. , 621;AbtulRashim Suleiman v. The RepublicofCyprus
(1987)3C.L.R.224.) AprovisionalorderinAdministrativeLawisadrasticremedy \Q which should be sparingly given.It is granted when the act is tainted withflagrant illegality.TheCourt,however,indeterminingtheissueofflagrant illegality mustavoidgoingtothemerits oftherecourse,inordertoavoidprejudging therecourseonsuch anearlystage. ,c Illegality tobeflagrant shouldbesuchastobeidentifiableon thefaceoftherecourse. Provisionalordermaybegrantedwhenthereisclearevidence ofirreparabledamage,whichmustbespecifically andsuccinctly pleaded. What constitutes irreparable damage is not simply a 20 questionwhetherinfact alosswillbeirrecoverable. Asaprovisionalorderisanexceptionaldiscretionarymeasure, thegeneralinterest shouldnotbesacrificed anditshouldprevail overtheprivateinterestoftheapplicant Negative administrative decisions cannot be suspended by 25 meansofaprovisionalorder. Article32oftheConstitutionprovidesthattheRepublicisnot precludedfromregulatingbylawanymattersrelatingtoaliensin accordancewithInternationalLaw. AccordingtotheprinciplesofInternationalLawthe reception 30 ofaliensbyaStateisamatterofdiscretion;andeveryStateisby 942 3C.L.R. Rodatv.Republic StylianidesJ. reason of its territorial supremacy competent toexclude aliens from itsterritory-(Oppenheim'sInternationalLaw,8thed.,vol. 1,pp. 675-676). 5 The Administration has a very wide discretionary powerin permittinganalientoenterintheRepublic. Theapplicantinthepresentapplicationdoesnotapplyforthe suspensionoftheoperationoftheadministrativeactschallenged bytherecourse. Analien,subject toanyrightsthatmaybeconferred byconventionorbilateraltreaty,hasnorighttoenterthecountry.His 10 onlyright isthatanapplication toenter thecountry shouldbe consideredbythecompetentauthoritiesoftheRepublicingood faith. CounselfortheapplicantreferredtoArticle30oftheConstitu15 tion andarguedthatiftheapplicantisnotallowedtocomeirrCy-~ prus, then she will bedeprived of the fundamental right safeguardedbyArticle30oftheConstitution. Article30oftheConstitution corresponds toArticle6ofthe European Convention enHuman Rights,which wasratified by 20 Law 39/62andhassuperiorforce overDomesticLegislation.It safeguardstherightofeverypersontovindicatehisrightsbefore a Court ofLaw andhave afair trial.Within thenotion of "fair trial"istherighttoprosecuteone'scaseandtherightofequality of arms-(Kyriacos NicolaKouppisv. TheRepublic
(1977)2 25 CL.R.>361). TheapplicantdidnotapplytotheAdministrationforentryfor theparticularpurposestatedintheaffidavit ofhercounsel. 30 ThepowerofthisCourttomakeaprovisionalorderdoesnot extendtogivearighttoentertheRepublicandstayintheabsence of rjermission by the Migration Authorities.This Court cannot substitutetheAdministrationbygrantingthereliefprayedinthis 943 StylianidesJ. Rodatv. Republic
(1988)application.ThisiswithinthepoweroftheAdministrationunder theprovisionsoftheAliensLaw,Cap.105asamended. Thefile of theAdministration wasproduced.Theopposition oftherespondentswas filed. Aperusalof theapplication andtheopposition indicates that 5 thedeterminationofthisrecoursewillbebasicallybasedondocuments.If, inadditiontodocuments,thetestimonyoftheapplicant isnecessary,suchtestimonymaybefurnished,eitherintheform ofaffidavit swornabroad,orbyotherprocedures.TheCourtwill dealwiththem,ifandwhenneedarises. 10 Itappearsthattheapplicantencounterednodifficulty ingiving instructionstohercounsel,eitherinthefilingoftherecourse,or inthecross-examinationofChristosChristoudias,whomhereallycross-examined atlength.Weliveinaneraofadvancedtechnology,thecommunicationsbetweenthiscountryandGermany 15 are soadequatethatnodifficulty existsin theprosecution ofthe casebecauseoftheabsenceoftheapplicantabroad,especiallyso, havingregard tothenatureoftheproceedingsunderArticle146 andtheprocedurefollowed bythisCourtinitsInquisitorialRevisionalJurisdiction. 20 For alltheforegoing, theapplication for provisional orderis dismissed. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 25 944