(1988)1988May 17 [STYLIANIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION SYDNEYALFREDMOYOANDANOTHER, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1. THEMINISTEROFINTERIOR, 2.THEMIGRATIONOFFICER, 3.THECHIEFOFPOLICE, Respondents. (CaseNo.311/88). Aliens—TheDeportation (BritishSubjects)Law, Cap. 108—Flagrantlyinconsistentwith the treaties, whereby theRepublic ofCypruswascreatedand withitsconstitution—ItceasedtobeagoodlawasfromtheIndependence ofCyprus. Aliens—TheAliensandImmigrationLaw, Cap. 105—The definition of"alien"—No longergoodlaw—Asfromthe IndependenceofCyprusalienisa person,who isnotacitizenoftheRepublic. Provisionalorder—Whengranted—Principlesapplicable—Incaseofconflict, publicinterestshouldprevailoverprivateinterest. Aliens—TherightoftheStatetoexpelthem. 10 Applicant 1 isaholderofapassportofZimbabwe.Applicant2aholder ofaBritishpassport Followinginformationconcerningtheiractivitieswith regard tonational security,theyweredeclaredprohibited immigrantsand therewereissueddeportationanddetentionorders. Hencethisrecourseandthepresentapplication forprovisionalorders 976 15 3 C.L.R. 5 j \ 10 15 Moyo & Another v. Republic suspendingtheeffect of thesubjudicedecision.Theycomplainedof"flagrantillegality"inthatnonoticewasservedonthem undersection5 of Cap.108.Theyalleged thatiftheCourtdoesnotissuetheprovisionalordersought,theywillsuffer irreparabledamageinthattheywillnothavethe opportunity tocontinuetheirjobandstudies,respectively,norbeabletobe heardbytheCourtintherecourse. Held, dismissing theapplication:
(1)Cap. 105wasenactedinanera, whentheBritishEmpirewasstillatitsheightandCyprusaColony.ItseparatedBritishsubjectsintotwocategories.Britishsubjectswho"belonged tothecolony"and"immigrantBritishsubjects".Theobject wastoregulate thedeportationofthelatter. •ThesubstratumofCap. 108waswashedawaybytheIndependenceof Cyprus.British subjects arenowaliens.Cap.108isflagrandy repugnant andinconsistentwiththeInternationalDocuments,wherebytheRepublic wasestablished, and to theConstitution of theRepublic.IthasbeenrepealedinvirtueofArt. 188oftheConstitution. AsCap. 108isnolonger law,theaforesaid issueof flagrant illegality fails. 20
(2)Thedefinition of"alien"inCap.105isnolongergoodlaw.An "alien"isnowanyperson,whoisnotaCitizenoftheRepublic.
(3)Applicantsfailed toestablishirreparabledamage.Eveniftheyhad succeededinprovingsuchdamage,publicinterest(nationalsecurity)would haveprevailedovertheirprivateinterest 25 30
(4)Astatehasadiscretionarypowertodecidewhethertoexpelanalien .present initsterritory,butthispowermustbeexercised in.suchawayas nottoinfringetherightsunderInternationalConventionofthepersonconcerned.
(5)The'conceptof "fairtrial"(Art.30oftheConstitution)doesnotrequireapplicants'presence inCyprus^Weliveinaneraofadvancedtechnology.Themeansofexternalcommunicationsofthiscountryaresoade' quatethatnodifficulty existsintheprosecutionofthecasebecauseofthe absenceoftheapplicantsabroad,especiallyso,havingregardtothenature oftheproceedingsunderArt. 146. Applicationdismissed. Noorder'asto costs. 977 Mayo & Another v. Republic
(1988)Casesreferredto: Joyce v.DirectorofPublicProsecutions[1946]1 A11E.R. 181; Michaelidouv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 1836; Rodatv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.937; AGEEv.TheUnitedKingdom(ApplicationNo.7729/76)7D.R.,p.164; Karaliotasv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.
- Application for provisional order. Applicationfor aprovisionalorderprohibitingtherespondents from takinganymeasurefortheimplementationofthedecisionto deport applicantsuntilthedetermination of therecourse against JQ decision. N.Pirillides,forapplicants. P. Clerides, forrespondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J.read thefollowing decision.Bymeansof 15 thisapplication theapplicants seekaprovisionalorder"prohibitingall and each oneof therespondents totakeany measure for theimplementationofthedecisiontodeporttheapplicants,orany of themand/ortotakeanyactfortheaforesaid purposeuntilthe detenninationofthisrecourse". 20 Anorganizationbythename"YouthWithAMission(Cyprus) Ltd.", of foreign origin with activities for the Middle East was registered undertheCompaniesLawinthiscountry.Theseatof this company is Nicosia. Its declared activities appear in the Memorandum of Association, page 1of which wasattached to 25 theaffidavit swominsupportoftheapplicationbyJonathanKel978 3 C.L.R. Moyo& Another v. Republic Stylianiades J. lyDieterofU.S.A.,nowof Limassol,theresponsible fortheactivitiesofthesaidcompany inthetownandDistrictofLimassol. 5 10 15 20 25 30 ApplicantNo. 1 isaholderof apassportofZimbabwe.Onthe 20th September, 1987,atemporary residencewas granted tohim toremain in Cyprus as student of this Youth With a Mission. This temporary permit expired on 10th March,
- On 10th February, 1988 he submitted an application for renewal of his resident permit inordertotake-up employment asa staff worker/ teacherwith this Mission. The applicant No.2 is the holder of a British passport and he wasinthe Republicbyvirtueofatemporary licenceasa student oftheYouthWithA Mission. TheHeadof theCentralInformation Serviceofthe Republic, byreport totheMinisteroftheInteriorgavehiminformation con: cemingthemovementsandactivitiesoftheapplicantswithaTurk citizen in the old Limassol port, which were connected with the securiry of theState. The Minister of the Interior, having considered the material placedbefore him,declared theapplicantsprohibitedimmigrants, decided theirdeportation andinstructed andauthorized theDirector General of the Ministry toexclude both applicants from the country andproceedwiththeissueofDeportation andDetention Orders. On22nd March, 1988,Deportation andDetention Orderswere made.These Deportation and Detention Orders were sent to the Commander of thePolicefordueexecution. On 26th March, 1988, the applicants were informed both of the Deportation and Detention Orders. They were arrested and they were told that they would bedeported as soon as arrangementsweremadeforthepurpose. The applicants immediately afterwards, 30.3.1988, filed this 979 Stylianides J. Moyo & Another v. Republic
(1988)recourse praying for the annulment of the decision of 22nd March, 1988 for their deportation and all actions taken for the deportation anddetention. They, also, filed this application for provisional order. The facts relied upon are setout intheaffidavit sworn byJonathan 5 Kelly Dieter of U.S.A., now of Limassol, District Managerof thisMissionatLimassol. Inparagraphs 18and 19ofthataffidavit itisstated thattheadministrative actscomplained of-theDeportation andDetention Orders-areaflagrant violationof theLawsoftheRepublicand 10 thatapplicantswereneverinformed ofthereasonsoftheirdetention andintendeddeportation;theywerenotallowedtomakerepresentationswithregardtotheirallegedbreachesoftheLaw.That iftheCourtdoesnotissuetheprovisionalordersought,theapplicantswillsuffer irreparabledamageinthattheywillnothavethe 15 opportunitytocontinuetheirjobandstudies,respectively,norbe abletobeheardbytheCourtinthereconrse.Moreovertheapplicants'righttoreceiveareplytotheirapplicationsforrenewalspf theirpermitswillbedefeated. The application wasopposed.Theopposition wassupported 20 by affidavit of Christos Christoudhias, amemberof thestaff of theMigrationoffice, inwhichherelatesthefacts assetoutabove and thaton7thApril, 1988,theMinisterof theInteriorrevoked theOrderfor theDetention,butnotthedecisiondeclaringthem prohibited immigrants and the Deportation Order. Hedeposed, yfurther, thatthedecision toexcludetheapplicantsandtheDeportationOrderwastakenandissuedinaccordancewiththeConstitution, theLaws,and theRegulations.Itisnotinanywayfaulty in law orin fact. That suspension of theexecution of thatorder willcreateseriousproblemstotheAdministration, tothepreservation of thepublic order and security.That theapplicants will notsuffer anyirreparabledamage,andtheadministrationofjusticein theircasewill not,in anyway,behindered.If theprovisionalorderisgrantedtheAdministrationandthepreservationof legalitywillbesubstantially andirreparablyimpaired,asthechal- 35 980 3 C.L.R. Moyo & Another v. Republic Stylianides J. lenged orderwas issuedfor thesecurity of theRepublic. 5 Theapplicationis based onsection32of theCourtsof Justice Law, 1960, (Law No. 14/60)', sections 11 and Ϊ7 of the Admin istration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964, (Law No.33/64), the Rules of the Supreme Constitutional Court, 13 and 18andtheAliensandImmigrationLaw, Cap. 105. ' At the request of counselfor theapplicants,Christoudhias was cross-examined. Thefileof theAdministration was produced. * 10 15 20 25 30 Learnedcounsel for theapplicants submitted thatthe interlocutoryrelief sought is thesuspension of theexecution of the admin istrative acts challenged by therecourse.Though this isslightly different from what is prayed in the application, nevertheless, havingregard totheprinciples obtaining intheinterpretationof recourses andapplications inthesphereof Administrative Law,I accept that this is theinterlocutory order sought. Itappears that counsel was influenced by section 32of Law 14/60'governing the issueof interlocutory ordersinthedomainof Private Law. Heargued thatthereis aflagrant violation of theprovisions of theDeportation(British Subjects) Law, Cap! 108of the 1959edition, of theLawsof Cyprus,inthatthenoticerequired undersec tion 5was notgiven;thattheapplicantwas notpresented before a Judge,andgenerally therewas nocompliance atall with the re quirementsprescribed by Cap. 108.Hesaidthatitapplies toboth applicants,as the oneis aBritish subject andthe otheris acitizen of aColony of theCommonwealth. That the applicants will suffer irreparable damages, as they willbedeprived of theirrighttopursue properly theirrecourse, andthiswould notbedoneif they areoutof thecountry,ahdwill suffer, also,irreparable damageinthattheywill'not have theopportunity tocontinuetheirjob andstudies,respectively,withthe Mission. < · • TheDeportation(British Subjects) Law was enacted on 21st 981 Stylianides J. Moyo&Another v. Republic
(1988)May, 1937.Theisland of Cyprus was aBritish Colony; the Cy priotewere British subjects, eitherby theCyprusAnnexationOr ders inCouncil 1914-1943, orby birth,orby reason of thegrant by theGovernorof acertificate of naturalization and/or other wise. Cap. 108 of theDeportation (British Subjects) Law separated the British subjects in twocategories: British subjects who"be long totheColony" and the "immigrant British subjects". With regard totheimmigrant British subjects thedeportation,if their stay in thecountry was for a period of less thanthreemonths, JQ could bedecided by theGovernorinCouncilafter certain proce dure,prescribed by thelaw, was followed. If they stayed inthe country for aperiodlonger thantheoneprovided undersection2
(3), the approval of theSecretary of State for theColonies was required before any deportationof an immigrantBritish subject , ~ couldbe made. At thetimeof the enactmentof thisLaw, theBritish Empire was covering almost theonefourth of theglobeanditwas being said thatthesundid notset inthatEmpire.Hundredsof millions of personsin theBritish Empirewere British subjects. TheBrit- ~o ish subjects owed allegiance tothe British Sovereign and were entitled totheprotectionextended toBritish subjects. The effect of the possession of the passport is stated in the Judgment of Lord Jowitt L.C.,in Joyce ν Director of Public Prosecution [1946] 1All E.R. 181 at p. 191.Ever since,cataclysmic events tookplace. Thedecades thatfollowed thesecondworld warwitnessed the decline and dissolution of the Empire. The wind of freedom sweptaway theEmpire.New states were bornorcreated inthe place of the Empire.Mostof these states formed theCommon- ^0 wealth,whichisaloose linkof states. Onthe 16thAugust, 1960, theInternational Statusof Cyprus changed.TheRepublicof Cypruswas established. 982 5 3 C.L.R. 5 !Q Moyo & Another v. Republic Stylianides J. Thecitizenshipof thenew Stateis governed bythe provisions of Article 198 of the Constitution and the Treaty of Establishment, that is theTreaty concerning theestablishment of theRepublic of Cyprus between the Republic, the Kingdom of Greece (now RepublicofGreece),theRepublicofTurkey.and theUnited Kingdom of GreatBritain andNorthern Ireland. • Pursuant totheprovisions of Article.198,theRepublic of Cyprus Citizenship Law, 1967, (Law No. 43/67) was enacted and came into operation on 1st December, 1969.,The provisions of Annex "D"of theTreaty of Establishment have been adopted as partof thedefinition of "citizen of theRepublic"andarefound in section.3 of this Statute - (see Aliki Michaelidou v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1836). , t. ^. • . Theobject of thatLaw.was.toprovide grounds and machinery for the deportation from a British Colony (Cyprus) British sub15 jects -immigrant British subjects, persons who owed allegiance to the same Sovereign, as the British subjects belonging,to the then Colony. Both the substratum and the substantiveprovisions of thisLaw were washed away bythechange of thestatusof this country intheinternational field. This isnomore aBritish Colo20 ny.TheSecretary of Stateof theBritish Governement isaMinister of aForeign Power with no right, power,-or authority what,soever in theRepublic of Cyprus.The British subjects are.aliens and havenomore rights than any other foreign citizen,except as may be provided by Bilateral or International Agreement. This 25 ·•·• Law was in,force on the date of thecoming intooperation of the Constitution. It isflagrantly repugnant and inconsistent.with the InternationalDocuments,whereby the Republic wasestablished, andtotheConstitution of theRepublic.« "\•• -, • „ > . . •:• Therefore, in virtue of the provisions of Article 188, which providesthatlawspre-existing theConstitution shall be'construed and applied with such modification asmay benecessary to.bring into conformity with the Constitution, the Deportation (British Subjects) Law, Cap.' 108was repealed. "Modification" includes 35 repeal.Asfrom 16thAugust, I960 itisnomore inforce. Itisnot 983 Stylianides J. Moyo & Another v. Republic
(1988)partoftheLawofthecountry. An "alien" in Cap. 105wasdefined atthe timeof theenactmentof thisLaw- 19thJune, 1952,"aperson whoisnot aBritish subject orthecitizenof theIrish Republicoranativeofthe Colony".Thisisnomoregoodlaw."Alien"nowmeansaperson 5 whoisnotacitizen of theRepublic.The applicants arealiens(seeAliensandImmigrationRegulations1972). In view of the above the non-compliance with Cap. 108 -a deadlaw-isnotaflagrant illegality,noranillegalityatall. TheprovisionalorderinAdministrativeLawisdifferent from 10 an interlocutoryorderinthedomain of PrivateLaw.Section32 of theCourtsofJusticeLawisnotapplicable.Theprinciplesand thegroundsonwhich aprovisional orderisgiveninAdministrativeLawdifferfromthoseobtaininginCivilLaw. Aprovisionalorder isadrasticremedy whichwouldbespar- 15 ingly given. It is granted when theadministrative actis tainted withflagrant illegality,thatisillegalitywhichispalpably identifiableonthefaceoftherecourse. Provisionalorder,also,maybegrantedwhenthereisclearevidenceofirreparabledamage,whichmustbespecifically andsue- 20 cinctlypleaded. Asaprovisionalorderisanexceptionaldiscretionarymeasure, thegeneralinterest should notbesacrificed anditshouldprevail overtheprivateinterest oftheapplicant-(see,interalia,Monica Rodat,v.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.937). Article32oftheConstitutionprovidesthattheRepublicisnot precludedfromregulatingbylawanymattersrelatingtoaliensin accordancewiththeInternationalLaw. InternationalLawincludesBilateralorMultilateralConventions. 984 25 3 C.L.R. Moyo& Another v. Republic Stylianides J. Ithasbeenconstantly held thattherightof an alien toresidein theterritory of thecountry isnot assuch guaranteed by theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.On thecontrary, itis clearly implied byArticle5
(1)(f) of theConvention andArticle 11.2(f)of 5 theConstitution, thattheHighContracting PartiesandtheRepublicof Cyprus intended toreserveto themselves thepower todeport aliens from their territory. Astate hasadiscretionary power todecidewhether toexpel an alien present initsterritory, but this power must be exercised in such a way as not to infringe the ,« rights under International Convention of the person concerned (seeAGEE v.The UnitedKingdom, Application No.7729/76,7 D.R., p. 164 at pp. 172-173; Karaliotas v. Republic,
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1701. Theirreparabledamagespleaded are:15 (a)That theapplicants will losetheirjob and student-ship,respectively with thisYouth With AMission;and (b)That they will bedeprived of theright to be present throughouttheprosecution of theirrecourse. 20 25 They have no right toremain in this country, unless the authorities of the country in the exercise of the territorial supremacy grant such arighttothem, and they have not been granted such a righttoremain in thecountry. The loss of a temporary job and the discontinuance of studentshipin a Mission of the natureof thiscompany is not irreparable damage. Even if it were, it would not be such as totip the scales in favour of the grant ofaprovisional ordercontrary topublicinterest -national security. The second leg is based on Article 30 of the Constitution, which corresponds to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 985 Stylianides J. Moyo & Another v. Republic
(1988)A perusal of the recourse and of the opposition and the affidavitin supportof thisapplication indicates thatthedetermination of therecourse will bebasically based ondocuments.The file of the Administration is before the Court. If, atany stage,the testimony of the applicants is necessary, such testimony may befur- <> nished, either in the form of affidavit sworn abroad, or by other procedures.This Court willdeal with them, if and when theneed arises. We livein aneraof advanced technology.Themeansof external communications of thiscountry are soadequate that nodiffi- JQ culty exists in the prosecution of thecase because of the absence of the applicants abroad, especially so, having regard to the nature of the proceedings under Article 146 and theprocedure followed bythis Court in itsInquisitorial Revisional Jurisdiction. In sum,the applicants arealiens.They have norighttoremain 15 inthiscountry without permission from thecompetent authorities of theRepublic. The Deportation (British Subjects) Law, Cap. 108, was, as from theestablishment of the Republic,repealed, bybeingrepugnant and inconsistent and not inconformity with theprovisionsof 20 the Constitution. The applicants have not discharged the burden of persuading theCourt that they will suffer irreparable damage.Even if theallegationsof theapplicants constitute irreparable damages, which the Court finds that they do not, they are not such as to prevail 25 over thegeneral interest. In theresult, theapplication for provisional order isdismissed with noorder as tocosts. Application dismissed withnoorderas tocosts. 30 986