(1989)19S9Januar> 26 ISAYVIDESJ] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ANDREAS THEODORIDES. Applicant. \ THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRLS. THROUGH THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND OTHERS. Respondents (Case.\ο S7S/S7) Executory act — Monetary differences — Outsideambitof PublicLaw — Gratuitypayable topoliceofficerupon retirement attachedfor payment of debt allegedly due jointly andse\erally by applicant andanother person to theGo\eminent— Disputerelatedto debtto theGovernment, butnot to question whetherthegratuitywasdue— ThisIactdistinguishes 5 present casefrom Tsiartziazis ι. TheRepublic (19S5) > CLR I — Tiiedecisionmrespect ot theattachmentisnot anexecutory act— 77ic PensionsLaw Cap 311, section 12 Constitutional Law—Equality —Constitution. An. IS — Attachment ol 10 gratuit\ payable upon ictiiemem ol applicant from the police lor payment of debt dueto Go\emmcnt jointly andseverally with another person whosegratuity payable uponhisretirement from thepolicewas not attached — Question, whether principle ol equality violated. determined m thenegatne 15 The tacts andissues inthepresent recourse sufncientK appeal·in the hereinabo\ e Headnotcs TheCourt held that thesubjudicedecision is in the domain ot Prnaic Law Ittuithcr held that theprinciple of equalit) had notbeen \iolatcd because theco-debtor hadletircd eaihcr than the 2 0 applicant ihcmattci hadnot been withintherespondent's contemplation and inan\ c\ent theiecannot be equalin ansingfrom anillegalact (vide 8S 3 C.L.R. Theodorides \. Republic &Others section 12of the Pensions Law.Cap 311). Recourse dismissed. So order as to costs. 5 Caserctcrredto: Tsiartziazisv. Republic(19S5)3C.L.R. 1 10 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondentswherebythe payment of gratuity to applicant granted to him under the law on retirement was attached by the respondent on accont oi a 15 debt dueto the Government. C Me/as.for the Applicant. 20 M. Floremzos. Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents. Cur. adv.vult. SAYVIDES. J. read the following judgment. Applicant. b\ 25 the present recourse, challenges the decision oi the respondent dated 17thAugust. 19S7.wherebythepayment ofgratuitytothe applicant granted under the law on retirement was attached by the respondent on account of a debt dueto the Government. 30 The applicant wasa police constable whoentered the police force on 28th August. 1973and had served till the 12th August. 19S6.when hesubmitted an application tor retirement from the service, On the 2nd September. 1986.the Minister of Interior approved his application and the Director-General of the 35 Ministry of Interior informed the Chief of Police accordingly. The Accountant-General of the Republic on the basis of the service of the applicant found that theapplicant was entitled to agratuity of£5.045.49. 40 The Director-General of the Department of Public Administration andPersonnel ofthe Ministry of Financehaving 89 Sawides, J. Theodondes Λ.Republic & Others
(1989)obtained the ad\ice of the Attorney-General in that respect wrote on the 5th August. 19S
- a letter to the Chief of Police informing him that under theprovisions of s 12 of the Pensions Law the Government was entitled to attach the retirement gratuiu of the applicant against a debt due to the Government 5 the balance of which amounted to £7.739 75 The said amount was due jointh and severally by applicant and one Panikos Angehdes of Limassol underabond dated 195 19S6 payable to the Director of Customs and Excise in settlement of import duties due 10 B\ letter dated 17th August. 19S7, the Chief of Police addressed the follow ing letter to counsel acting on behalf of the applicant 15 "In continuation of m\ letter dated 11th Februan. 19S
- in connection with the payment of gratuity to your aforesaid client ex-police constable. I ha\e been instructed to inform >ou that in accordance with s 12 of the Pensions Law the pension and/orgratuity which are granted underthe said law 20 are not subiect to attachment for any debt or claim unless such debt is due to the Government of Cyprus Taking into consideration the fact that \our client owes to the GoAernment by virtue of a bond a sum which exceeds the amount of the gratuity the Go"\ernmentis entitled to attach 25 thegratuin on account of such debt Therefore the Ministry of Financehas not approved the payment of thegratuity to vour client" Hence the applicant filed the present recourse 30 Thelegal grounds set out thereinin support of the prayer are the following (l)The respondents were operating under a misconception 35 of fact and/orlaw when they took thesub judice decision
(2)The sub judice decision was taken arbitrarily and/or in violation of the existing legislation and the principle of natural justice
(3)The sub judice decision was based on non-existing facts 90 40 3 C.L.R. Theodondes \ . Republic &Others Sawides, J. and/ormisconcei\edcriteriawhereastherealfacts related to the piesent case were not taken into consideration
(4)The sub judice decision isnot duly reasoned 5
(5)The sub judice decision violates the principle oi equality and causes discrimination against the applicant B\ hisopposition counsel for therespondentscontendedthat 10 the sub mdice decision does not amount to an executory admimstratneact inthesenseof.Article 146of the Constitution andcouldnotbechallengedbyarecourse Hefurther contended that the sub judice decision was taken properly and lawfully in accoidancewiththelaw theregulationsandtheConstitution,in 15 the proper exercise ol the discretionary power of the respondents on thebasis ol all relevant lacts and circumstances of the case and it isduly leasoned B> his written address counsel for the applicant contended 20 thatthesub ludicedecision isof an executory nature asits effect wasto deprive theapplicant oftheretirement gratuity towhich he was entitled under s 6 of the Pensions Law Cap 311 He further contended that under s 12 of the Pensions Law the respondents werebound to pay to the applicant anygratuity to 25 which he was entitled and they had no right to attach same as suchgiatuity isnot assignableortransferable to anybodyexcept under the provisions of paragraphs (
- a)and (
- b)In the present case the alleged debt to the Government was disputed by the applicant who. together with the other debtor who was jointly 30 and se\erally liable with him on the alleged bond, brought an action m the District Court of Limassol under No 3094/87 against the Director oi the Department of Customs and Excise claiming the cancellation of such bond as haung been signed under pressure and/or undue influence and/orfraud and/or false 35 pretences, etc Such action is still pending and. therefore, the indebtedness of the applicant and his co-debtor has not been established and assuch isnot attachable for any debt dueto the government Counsel further arguedthat the decision contained intheletter sent to counsel for applicant isnot dul\ reasoned 40 Insupport ofhiscontention that theprinciple ofequalityhas been uolated in this case counsel for applicant submitted that 91 Sa** ides. J. Theodorides Λ . Republic & Others
(1989)whereas m the case of his co-debtor who was also a police constable andhadretired shortly before the applicant the whole amount of his gratuity was paid without thealleged debt having been taken intoconsideration,inthecase of the applicantunder similar circumstances and m respect of a debt jointly owed by 5 him andhis co-debtor hewas deprived of hisgratuity which was attached against the alleged debt This, counsel submitted, clearly amounts to aλlolanon of Article 28 of theConstitution Counsel made reference to decided cases on this matter and concludedthattheprincipleof equality of treatmentinthiscase 10 hadbeen violated because thedifferentiation madebetween him and his co-debtor does not embody objecme and reasonable notification. Counsel foi the respondent in reply to the arguments 15 advanced by counsel for the applicant submitted that the sub ludice decision does not amount to an executory act under Article 146 of the Constitution and. therefore, it could not be challenged bv arecouise 20 The respondents, counsel contended, did not deny the entitlement of the applicant to a retirement benefit but m the exercise of the powers νested inthemunderthelaw attachedthe amount of such benefit towards the indebtedness of the applicant to therespondents andset off such amountagainst the 25 amount duebv theapplicant This,counsel submitted, amounts to a financial difference within the ambit of private law and amenable withinthe jurisdiction of theCi\il Courts A question might have arisen if therespondents disputed theentitlementof the applicant to such benefit but not their refusal to pay after 30 they ha\e acknowledged thatsuch amount was payable The decision of the respondents was taken on the basis of s 12 of the Pensions Law. Cap 311 which provides as follows 35 "A pension gratuity or other allowance granted under this Law shall not be assignable or transferable except for the purpose of satisfy ing.d) a debt due to the Government,or b) an order of anν Court for the payment of penodical 92 40 3 C.L.R. Theodorides v. Republic & Others Savvides, J. sums of money towards the maintenance of the wife or former wife or minorchild of theofficer to whom the pension, gratuity or other allowance has been granted. 5 andshall notbeliabletobe attached, sequestered orlevied upon for or in respect of any debt or claim whatever except a debt due to theGovernment." 10 In support of his contention counsel for applicant sought to rely in the case of Tsiartziazis r. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1in which it was held that the refusal of the respondent is an executory administrative act within the domain of public law andassuch canbe subject toarecourse notwithstandingthat 15 it relates to a financial dispute because many of the disputes before the Administrative Couits are without doubt financial disputes as for instance tax matters. The Tsiartziazis case (supra), however, is distinguishable from the present case as in that case the administration denied that the applicant was 20 entitled to the payment of gratuity·' whereas in the present case there is an admission thatgratuity ispayable buttheamountdue is attached by way of set off against a claim of the respondents. 25 30 35 40 In Kyriacopoulos Greek Administrative Law, 4th ed.,vol. 3. p.263 we read the following: "Αι οε OLacjOQca αι αφοοώσαιει; την κατοβολήν μισθών και λοιπών αποδοχών υπάγονται εις τα τακτικά δικαστή ρια. Δια(τοοαίόμως περί τον καθορισμόν του μισθούκαι των λοιπών αποδοχών του υπαλλήλου, κατ' εφαρμονήν των σχετικών νόμων,υπάγονται, ως προς τον έλεγχον της νομιμότητος. εις τοΣ.τ.Ε." Also in the Conclusions from the case law of the Greek Council of State. 1929-1959 at pp. 235-236 we read the following: "Απομένει προς έρευναντοζήτημα τηςχρηματικής διαφο ράς τηςγεννώμενης εκμονομερούς πράξεωςτηςΔι,οικήσεως. εκδιδομένηςεπί τηβάσεικανόνωντουδιοικητικού δι καίου. 93 Savvides. J. Theodorides v. Republic & Others
(1989)Ειςτηντελευταίαν ταΰτηνπερίπτωσινγίνεταιδεκτόνυπό της νομολογίας του Συμβουλίου της Επικρατείας,ότι εφ' όσοντο αντικείμενον τηςαμφισβητήσεως περιορίζεται εις απαίτησιν συγκεκριμένου χρηματικούποσού,δενυφίστα ται δε ενδεχόμενον άλλη;τινός εφαρμογής ήάλλης συνε- 5 πείας τηςπροσβαλλομένη;διοικητικής πράξεως, αρμόδια τυγχάνουν τα πολιτικά δικαστήρια. Ούτω εκρίθησαν ως υπαγόμενα εις την αρμοδιότητα των πολιτικών δικαστη ρίωνηαπαίτησιςπερί επιστροφήςαχρεωστήτωςκαταβλη θέντος φόρου,εφ'όσονδενυφίσταταιειδικήδιάταξις επι- 10 βάλλουσα την έκδοσιν διοικητικής πράξεωςπερίεπιστρο φής. η αίτησις η στρεφόμενη κατά πράξεως αρνούμενης την καταβολήνχρηματικήςοφειλής του Δημοσίου, ως αρ νήσεωςπρος καταβολήνσυντάξεως. Επίσηςεθεωρήθηως αστικήςφύσεωςχρηματικήδιαφοράη συνισταμένη ειςαμ- 15 φισβήτησιν περί της συνδρομής ή μη των προϋποθέσεων υφ' αςκατατεθείσα εγγύησις καταπίπτειυπέρτουΔημοσί ου,ωςκαιη αναγόμενη ειςαποζημίωσινλόγωπλημμελούς εφαρμογήςτουνόιιου. 20 ALπερί των μισθών, αποζημιώσεων,επιδομάτωνκαιαπο δοχών ενγένειδημοσίων υπαλλήλων διαφοραί.συνδεόμε νοι αμέσως προς την κατάνόμον ρύθμισιν τηςδημοσιοϋ παλληλικής σχέσεως, ούσης δημοσίου δικαίου, και μη εντοπιζόμεναι εις απλήν διεκδίκησιν συγκεκριμένου χρη- 25 ματικού ποσού, παραδεχτώ; φέρονται ενώπιον του Συμ βουλίου Επικρατείαςκατόπιναιτήσεως ακυρώσεως. Ού τωγίνεται τύποιςδεκτήαίτησιςπροσβάλλουσαπράξινκα θορισμού αποδοχών δημοσίου υπαλλήλου ήπαράλειψιν της Διοικήσεως όπως καταβάληεις τον υπάλληλον προ- 30 σθέτους αποδοχάς. ενώ ηαξίωσις περί καταβολής δεδου λευμένων μισθώναναδρομικώςεκμέρουςδημοσίουυπαλ λήλου. εφ·"όσονδιάτηςσχετικής διοικητικήςπράξεωςδεν θίγεται η υπηρεσιακήκατάστασιςαυτού,δημιουργεί χρηματικήναποκλειστικώς διαφοράν.υπαγομένηνειςτηναρ- 35 μοδιότητα των πολιτικών δικαστηρίων. Υπό το αυτό πνεύμα εκρίθηαπαράδεκτοςαίτησιςπροσβάλλουσα απαί τησιν περί καταβολής μισθού λόγω παρανόμουπαύσεως υπαλλήλου ήστρεφόμενη κατά αρνήσεως τηςΔιοικήσεως όπως καταβάληεις απολυθένταυπάλληλον ταςαποδοχάς 40 του.δι' ον χρόνον ετέλειεισέτι εν υπηρεσία. 94 3 C.L.R. Theodorides v. Republic & Others Savvides. J. Εφ·' όσον όμως διάτης αρνήσεως χορηγήσεως αποδοχών, έστω και δεδουλευμένων, θίγεται ηυπηρεσιακήκατάστασις τον υπαλλήλουκαι,μέσω ταύτηςηλειτουργίατης δη μοσίας υπηρεσίας,γίνεταιδεκτήηαίτησις ακυρώσεως. Bearing inmindtheabove principles,inthecircumstancesof the present case. Ifind thattherefusal of the respondents topayto the applicant the retirement benefits to which admittedly he was entitledandattachsuchamountunderthe provisions of s.12 of the Pensions Law. Cap. 311, against the amount due by the applicant, amounts to a financial dispute which is not an executory administrative act subject toa recourse under Article 146of the Constitution but it isa dispute within theambit of the Civil Law and as such amenable only before a civil Court. The question of violation of Article 2S does not arise in the present case as the co-debtor of the applicant retired on a different date,earlier to the applicant. Furthermorefrom what it appears from the material before me. the attention of the Minister of Financewas drawn to this fact when the case of the applicant was under consideration and it was not within the respondents' contemplation at the time when the co-debtor of the applicant hadretired. In any event if the respondents acted in contravention of the provisions of s. 12 of Cap. 311 such contravention being contrary tothelaw would nothave entitled the applicant toseek refuge to s.2S of the Constitution as there cannot be equality arising from an illegal act. For all the above reasons the recourse fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of the case Imake no order for costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 95