Supreme Court annuls education grant refusals based on outdated Loizides precedent, applying the later Constantinides ruling.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court annulled multiple refusals of education grants to applicants studying abroad, declaring them null and void. Applicants argued that grants were wrongly denied because the scheme was not applied to British Commonwealth countries or Ireland, citing the Loizides case which had previously restricted eligibility to Greece and Turkey. The court held that the later Constantinides decision overruled Loizides, establishing that the original scheme remained applicable to those regions, and thus the refusals were contrary to law.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAArticle 192 of the Constitution; Article 192(7)(b) of the Constitution: The Supreme Court must apply the binding precedent of Constantinides and The Republic (1969) 12 J.S.C. 1452, which overruled the earlier Loizides decision, thereby confirming that education grant schemes remain applicable to studies in the United Kingdom, other British Commonwealth countries, and the Republic of Ireland.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*655] 1970 June 30
(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J. )
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
In the matter of Article 146 of the Constitution
Andreas Zambakides and others,
Applicants,
and
The Republic of Cyprus, through
the Minister of Finance,
Respondent.
Cases Nos. 264/66, 114/67, 303/69,
131/70, 134/70-146/70, 148/70, 157/70,
159/70, 164/70, 171/70-179/70, 181/70,
183/70-187/70.
Administrative Law - Public Officers - Education grants - Refusal to pay education grants in respect of studies as laid down in relevant Government circulars of 1955 and 1957 - Declared null and void as being contrary to law namely the decision of the Supreme Court on appeal in the case of Constantinides and The Republic (1969) 12 J.S.C. 1452.
Public Officers - Education grants - See under "Administrative Law".
N. Aloneftis, for Applicant in 264/66.
L. Demetriades, for Applicant in 114/67.
E. Lemonaris, for Applicant in 303/69.
M. Papas, for Applicant in 157/70.
M. Christophides, for Applicant in 164/70.
A. Triantafyllides, for Applicants in 131/70, 134/70-146/70, 148/70, 159/70, 171/70-179/70, 181/70, 183/70-187/70.
L. Loucaides,Senior Counsel of the Republic, for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The following judgment was delivered by:
TRIANTAFYLLIDES,J.: In all these cases (which were heard [*656] together in view of their common nature) the several applicants complain that, though they are entitled, by virtue of Article 192 of the Constitution, to education grants in respect of studies of their children abroad, under a scheme set out in Government Circulars No. 1286 of the 6th December, 1955 and No. 1374 of the 23rd February, 1957, they have been refused payment of such grants, on the ground that the scheme was not applicable to studies abroad in any British Commonwealth country
- including the United Kingdom - or in the Republic of Ireland.
It is correct that in the case of Loizides and The Republic (1 R.S.C.C. 107) the then Supreme Constitutional Court - with myself as one of its members - decided that the scheme for education grants, as set out in the said circulars, had to be adapted, under Article 192(7) (b) of the Constitution, in such a manner as, in effect, to substitute in the place of the education grants in respect of studies in the United Kingdom, other British Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland (as provided for by the aforementioned circulars) education grants in respect of studies in Greece and Turkey (for Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks respectively).
In the later case of Constantihides and The Republic - in which when dealt with by me in the first instance (1967 7/8 J.S.C. 972) the adaptations to the scheme as made in the Loizides case were adhered to - the Supreme Court decided on appeal (1969 12 J.S.C. 1452) that such adaptations ought not to have been made and that, therefore, the scheme for [*657] education grants still continued to be applicable to studies in the United Kingdom, other countries of the British Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.
Though I, myself, still hold the views which I expressed in the Loizides case and in my first instance decision in the Constantinides case, I do consider myself bound to apply the law as laid down on appeal in the latter case.
As a result I must find that the refusals to pay education grants to the applicants, as decided upon, are contrary to law and they have to be declared to be null and void and of no effect whatsoever; and this decision of mine applies both in relation to the first three of the cases now before me (in which the refusals of the grants were based on the Loizides case) and to the remaining of such cases (in which the refusals were based on a decision of the Council of Ministers taken after the delivery of the judgment of the Supreme Court, on appeal, in the Constantinide case).
It is quite clear, on the material before me, and it is actually not in dispute, that the education grants were refused without examination of the circumstances of each case, with a view to deciding whether or not the applicant concerned was entitled, under Article 192. of the Constitution and under the relevant scheme, to an education grant. This being so I cannot attribute, in these proceedings, any significance to a contention, stated In replies given to a [*658] few of the applicants, that they lost their entitlement to an education grant because of the terms on which they accepted promotions; if it were at all possible in law for any one of them to lose his entitlement to an education grant through a term imposed on promotion - and I am inclined to doubt the validity of such a proposition - a lot would still depend on the specific circumstances in each particular instance; and such circumstances have to be examined by the appropriate authority along with all other relevant factors in each particular case.
As regards costs, the Republic should pay in each case £25.- towards costs.
Sub judice decisions
annulled; order for
costs as above.