(1989)19S9January 14 [KOURRISJ.] INTHE MATTER OF .ARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION MAGDA IOSIFAKI. Applicant. v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS.THROUGH THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. Respondent. (Case No. I045/S7) Legitimate interest — Constitution. An. 146.2 — Free and voluntary acceptanceofsubjudice act—Deprivesapplicant oflegitimateinterest. Generalprinciples of Administrative Law— Presumption of regularity— Unsubstantiatedallegation that theacceptance of subjudice act wasnot voluntary —In the absenceof evidence,thepresumption applies. Constitutional Law — Equality — Constitution. An. 28 — Free and voluntary acceptance of transfer abroadsubject to condition that no expatriation allowance wouldbepaid— Refusaltopay such allowance — In theabsenceof asimilarcase. i.e. transfersubjecttosuchcondition freely accepted in which the allowance waspaid, there has been no infringement of theprinciple ofequality. The facts and principles applied by the Court in this case sufficiently appear in the hereinabove Headnotes. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. Casesreferredto: Republic v.Ekkcshis
(1975)3 C.L.R.54S, 52 3 C.L.R. Iosifaki v.Republic leridesv. Republic
(1980)3C.L.R.
- Papadopoulou andAnotherv. C.B.C. (19S5) 3C.L.R.
- 5 AlexandrouandOthersv. Republic(19S6) 3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to pay 10 expatriation allowance toapplicant. A. S. Angelides. for the Applicant. 15 A. Vassiliades. Counsel of the Republic B. for the Respondent. Cur. adv.vult. 20 25 30 35 40 KOURRIS. J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse applicant challenges the decision of the respondents dated4/12/19S7whereby theclaim of applicant for thepayment of expatriation allowance was rejected by the respondents. Applicant joined the Civil Service on 15/6/1970andin 19S2 was posted as clerk 2nd Grade in the Ministry of Finance. On 2/4/19S2 applicant addressed a letter to the Director Public Administration and Personnel Service asking to be transferred to theCyprus High Commission in London without payment of expatriation allowance but she reserved her rights for the payment of expatriation allowance. Applicant on 2S/4/1982 addressed a new letter to the Director Generalof theMinistry of Financestating thatshe was willing to be transferred to the Cyprus High Commission in London without payment of expatriation allowances and without any reservation of her rights to claim same at a later stage. Inpoint of fact she stated inter alia, as follows:'Αναφορικά με την επιστολή σας με Αρ. Π1921/ΗΠ ... μουγνωστοποιείτετους όρουςπου συνοδεύουντην εν λό γω μετάθεση,επιθυμώ να δηλώσω υπεύθυνα και κατηγο ρηματικά ότι αποδέχομαι χωρίς επιφυλάξειςκαισυμφω- 53 Kourris. J. losifaki v. Republic
(1989)νώ τόσο με την μετάθεσηόσο και μετους όρους που την συνοδεύουν. Τηναποδοχήμου αυτή εκφράζωμεελεύθερη θέληση.' Applicant through her lawyer applied to the Minister of 5 Finance in 1986 claiming expatriation allowances but the respondent on4/12/1987rejected theclaim of theapplicanton the ground that she accepted her transfer to the Cyprus High Commission in London without payment of expatriation allowances andwithout anyreseA'ation ofherrights.Hence, the 10 present recourse. Counsel for the respondents raised the point that applicant has no legitimate interest to file a recourse because her acceptance to be transferred was free and without any 15 reservations. Counsel for applicant alleged that theletters dated 2/4/1982 and2S/4/19S2 were written by applicant as aresult of pressure and duress exercised on the applicant by the authorities 20 concerned. Inhiswritten address hewenteven sofar astostate that these letters were the result of threats. Healleged thatthe letter of 2/4/1982 was dictated to the applicant through telephone andthat applicant did not know the contents of the letter of28/4/19S2. Itisthecontentionoftheapplicant thatshe 25 merely signed ablank piece of paper andthatit was filled inby theAuthority concerned. These allegations were deniedby the"respondentsandduring the hearing of this recourse the aforesaid allegations were not 30 substantiated by applicant. In view of the presumption of regularity pertaining to administrative acts and/or decisions I amsatisfied that applicant didnotrebutthesepresumptionsand consequently it appears that the Authority concerned acted properlv and lawfully (see Republic v. Ekkeshis
(1975)3 35 C.L.R.548 andIerides v. Republic
(1980)3C.L.R. 165). Reverting now to the question whether applicant has a legitimate interest ornotIamsatisfied thattheapplicant has no legitimate interesttofilethepresentrecourse. Sheacceptedher 40 transfer without payment of expatriation allowances, free and unreservedly (see Papadopoulou and Another v. C.B.C. 54 3 C.L.R. Iosifaki v. Republic Kourris, J. (19S5) 3 C.L.R. 2274 and Alexandrou and Others r. The Republic (19S6) 3C.L.R.2554). Theletterdated 15/6/1987addressedbycounsel for applicant 5 to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs does not contain any new material for the re-examination and re-assessment of the circumstances pertaining to the transfer of applicant. With regard to the point raised in this recourse that in view of the circumstances of the transfer of the applicant there has been a 10 violation of Section 28 of the Constitution it cannot stand because the applicant accepted her transfer freely and without any reservation of herrights. Furthermore, applicant did not cite any case of transfer 15 similar to the circumstances of her transfer whereby the authorities concerned paid an expatriation allowance so as to give rise to Article 2Sof the Constitution. The case of Elpida Pediou referred to by counsel for 20 applicant is distinguished from the present case in that Pediou never accepted her transfer to the Cyprus High Commission in London without reservations for nonpayment of expatriation allowances.Therefore, this point alsofails. 25 For all the above reasons the recourse is dismissed but with no order for costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 55