Police Association and others v. The Republic of Cyprus, through 1. The Ministry of Interior and/or 2. The Commander of Police. (1972) JSC 45 · Supreme Court dismisses police overtime allowance claim as recourse filed after 75-day constitutional limit. (Supreme Court (JSC English))

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' recourses challenging the stoppage of extra-duty allowances for police officers. The applicants argued the government's circular infringing their rights under the Police Regulations, but the court focused solely on procedural timeliness. The decision was based on Article 146.3 of the Constitution, which mandates that such recourses must be filed within 75 days of the act, a period the applicants had exceeded.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 146.1 of the Constitution; Article 146.3 of the Constitution: A recourse for annulment challenging a decision to stop payment of statutory allowances is time-barred if filed after the 75-day limit prescribed by Article 146.3.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA

Constitutional Recourse Time Limit Expiration Extra Duty Allowance Police Regulations Administrative Omission Supreme Court Jurisdiction Statutory Deadline diritto alla disconnessione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Article 146.1 of the Constitution

In the matter of Article 146 of the

Article 146.3 of the Constitution

In the matter of Article 146 of the

Art. 146 which

In the matter of Article 146 of the

Art. 146 have

In the matter of Article 146 of the

Generato dall'IA

Υπόθεση Αρ. 435/2003

Supreme Court partially allows appeal, cancelling overtime award for pre-1992 period but upholding post-1992 ruling.

CY-AAD-meros_4-1995-rep-1995_4_2002

Supreme Court allows overtime claim by dismissing police circulars as non-binding internal rules inferior to regulations.

Αναθεωρητική Έφεση Αρ. 124/2011

Supreme Court dismisses appeal on appealable nature of administrative act and costs discretion.

Υπόθεση Αρ. 497/2017

Administrative court dismisses appeal as inadmissible because the contested letter was merely confirmatory, not a new executable act.

Υπόθεση αρ. 403/97

Supreme Court allows overtime claim for senior rank but dismisses claim for junior rank under Police Law.

Testo completo

[*45] 1972 January 5

(HADJIANASTASSIOU, J.)

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

In the matter of Article 146 of the

Constitution

The Police Association and others,

Applicants,

and

The Republic of Cyprus, through

1 . The

Ministry of Interior and/or

2. The Commander of Police,

Respondents.

(Cases Nos.327/69, 334/69 & 335/69).

Constitutional Law Time Article

146.3 of the Constitution Omission In the sense of Article 146.1 It denotes an

omission to do something required by Law, as distinct from the non-doing of a

particular act or the non-taking of a particular course when such non-action is

the result of an exercise of a discretion It presupposes that no action has

been taken by the administration in the matter in question Stoppage of payment

of extra-duty allowance to members of the Police Force Effected by means of a

circular letter of the Commander of the Police Not a case of a continuous

omission but a decision in the sense of the said Article 146.1 It can only be

challenged by a recourse for annulment within the time limit of 75 days

provided by the said Article 146.3.

Administrative Law Government

Circulars They may become the subject of a recourse for annulment when they

contain a decision of an executory nature Circular letter by Commander of

Police effecting stoppage of payment of extra duty allowance to members of the

Police Force It contains a decision of an executory nature because it infringes

the rights of applicants protected by the Police Regulations.

Constitutional Law Article 146.1 of

the Constitution Decision or Act in the sense of the said Article.

Administrative Law Executory Act

Confirmatory Act New enquiry When does a new enquiry exist.

L. Papaphilippou, for the

Applicants.

K. Talarides,

Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

The following judgment was delivered by:-

HADJIANASTASSIOU, J. : In these proceedings the

[*46] sole

question raised as a preliminary point of law, is whether the applications

before me have been filed in this Court after the period of 75 days, provided

for in paragraph 3 of Article 146 of the Constitution.

All applicants, who are members of

the Police Force of Cyprus, claimed, in these recourses, which have been heard

together because they relate to the same legal and factual issues, that the act

or omission of the respondents to pay them an allowance for extra duty as from

the period of July 8, 1964 till July 22, 1966, in accordance with the Police

(General) Regulations 1958, is illegal.

Just before Christmas Eve of 1963,

Cyprus found itself in the mist of intercommunal troubles, and I think the

present letter, I am about to quote, under the heading "Subsistence and

Extra Duty Allowance", dated February 3, 1964, (exhibit 23), addressed to

all Divisional/Departmental Commanders, by Mr. Antoniou, the Ag. Commander of

the Gendarmerie, makes the position clear without any further reference on my

part as to the facts which brought about the unfortunate events in Cyprus.

"In view of the present Emergency, as a

result of which members of the Force are being employed or retained beyond

their normal period of duty, at an average of 16 to 20 hours daily, I

have suggested to Government that it would be fair and reasonable for a

commuted allowance at the rate of £2 per week to be paid to each such member,

of the Force to cover both subsistence and extra duty allowances, in accordance

with [*47] Regs.

15(3) (d) and 29(3)(a) of the Police (General) Regulations.

2. Government has approved the above suggestions

wef 21.12.63. Arrangements will, therefore, be made for the payment of this

commuted allowance to all eligible members of the Force. Officers

who work extra hours for less than a week may draw subsistence allowance

at the rate of 250 mils per day.

3. It is pointed out that the payment of this

commuted allowance is in lieu of the normal subsistence and extra duty

allowances, and these allowances should not be paid to any member who will

receive the commuted allowance. In exceptional and deserving cases, however,

where you feel that the payment of subsistence allowance at the usual rates

should be made, the claims should be forwarded to this HQ for consideration.

4. Information Service personnel now drawing both

the plain clothes and detective allowances will continue to do so and will not

be entitled to receive the commuted allowance of £2.per week. The remaining

members of the Force now employed in uniform, including those in the

Aliens and Immigration and the CID will be paid the commuted allowance of

£2.per week if eligible, in which case no plain clothes and/or detective allowance

will be paid to any of them wef 1.2.64.

5. It is again emphasized that the payment of

this commuted allowance is not automatic but it will be paid in cases

where members of the Force have worked extra hours or have been retained beyond

their normal period of duty in accordance with regulations. A record should,

therefore, be kept at each station, post or branch showing [*48]

the working and stand-by period of each individual in support of claims for

commuted allowance.

6. Both this commuted allowance and the payment

of subsistence allowance at the rate of 250 mils per day, where applicable, will

be charged to Head 34A Gendarmerie, Sub-Head 1, Personal Emoluments, as shown

below:

(a) Payment of these allowances will be made on

the enclosed pro-formas in quadruplicate and forwarded to this FHQ in

triplicate and scrutiny before payment is effected.

(b) Claims thereafter should be treated in the

same way fortnightly in arrear.

7. It is assumed that in certain Divisions certain

members of the Force were provided with food contributed by various

institutions. In such cases the men concerned will not be entitled to the

payment of these allowances for the period they were provided with food. Where

special arrangements were made for feeding the men and the bills are still

outstanding the expenditure involved should now be met from the allowances to

be paid to the officers concerned."

Moreover, two days later, the

Commander of Police, on February 5, thought fit to circulate an almost

identical letter, HQ/159/8, to the same officers including the Commandant PGTS,

the Director of Information Service and the Chief Fire Officer, under the same

heading, viz., "Subsistence and Extra Duty Allowances" (see exhibit

24).

It is common ground that the Police

Officers who [*49] had to carry out extra duties because

of the troubles in Cyprus, were paid a commuted allowance of £2.per week as

from December 21 , 1963, till July 8, 1964. However, for reasons which would

appear in a moment, the Commander of Police (hereinafter called "the

Commander"), issued on July 8, 1964 (exhibit 2), which was addressed to

the Divisional/ Departmental Police Commanders. It reads:

"THE FLAT RATE OF SUBSISTENCE AND EXTRA DUTY

ALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO £ 2 PER WEEK AUTHORISED BY ME IN ACCORDANCE WITH REG.

I5(2)(d) OF THE POLICE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS TO MEMBERS OF THE FORCE CONSTANTLY

PERFORMING EXTRA DUTY WILL CEASE REPEAT WILL CEASE WITH EFFECT FROM 8.7.64.

2. MY CIRCULAR LETTER HQ/159/8 DATED 5.2.64 ON

THE SUBJECT SHOULD THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS CANCELLED.

3. SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE IN DESERVING CASES MAY

HOWEVER BE PAID BUT CLAIMS SHOULD BE SENT TO FORCE HQ FOR SCRUTINY AND

APPROVAL. THIS WILL BE VERY SPARINGLY GRANTED.

4. THIS MEASURE HAS BEEN NECESSITATED OWING TO

GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL STRINGENCY AND IT IS EXPECTED THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THE

FORCE WILL SHOW UNDERSTANDING AND SACRIFICE THIS SMALL EXTRA ALLOWANCE IN THE

COMMON EFFORT TO HELP OUT GOVERNMENT MEET HER HEAVY FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS DUE

TO THE PRESENT EMERGENCY.

5. C.I.D. MEN WILL CONTINUE TO BE EMPLOYED IN

UNIFORM AND NO UNIFORM ALLOWANCE WILL BE PAYABLE BUT THEY Will CONTINUE DRAWING

THE DUTY ALLOWANCE (.)

6. LETTER FOLLOWS." [*50]

Then, on July 14, 1964, the

Commander, because he has promised, in paragraph 6 of his circular letter

(exhibit 2), under the heading Subsistence and Extra Duty Allowances,

circulated a letter (exhibit 3), to the same officers, which is in these terms:

"Please refer to my letter of even number

dated 5th February, 1964, regarding the payment of £2 per week in the form of

subsistence allowance to members of the Force who were being employed or

retained for duty beyond their normal period of duty.

2. The payment of this

allowance will cease as from 8.7.64 but subsistence allowance in deserving

cases may however be paid in accordance with the provisions of regulation 29 of

the Police (General) Regulations.

3. Any such claims should however be referred to

this Headquarter for scrutiny and approval before payment is effected, which

will be granted very sparingly.

4. This measure has been necessitated owing to

Government financial stringency and it is expected that every member of the

force will show understanding and sacrifice this small extra allowance in the

common effort to help our Government to meet her heavy financial commitments

due to the present emergency.

5. C.I.D. men will continue to be employed in

uniform and no uniform allowance will be payable but they will be allowed to

draw the duty allowance for which you should let me have a detailed list of

those affected. [*51]

6. The Director of the Information Service should

submit a revised list of personnel required to work in plain clothes and are

recommended to draw the duty and/or plain clothes allowance."

In the light of these developments

and, as apparently the members of the Police Force were feeling aggrieved

because of the stoppage of the commuted allowance of £2.~ per week, on October

5, 1964, the Police Associations established under section 52 of the Police

Law, Cap. 285, convened a meeting and discussed the question of extra duties. An

extract from the minutes (exhibit 5), is as follows:

*"Θέμα:- Υπερωρίαι

Η αντιπροσωπεία της Πυροσβεστικής

υπηρεσίας, υπέβαλεν προς την ολομέλειαν το θέμα υπερωριών δι' ων επιφορτίσθη το

σώμα τούτο ένεκεν της εκτάκτου καταστάσεως.

Η ολομέλεια απεφάσισεν όπως

συζητήση το ύπερθεν θέμα εν συσχετισμώ με τις υπερωρίες δι' ων επιβαρύνθη το

Αστυνομικόν Σώμα ως σύνολον συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της Πυροσβεστικής.

Η ολομέλεια όθεν απεφάσισεν κατά

πλειοψηφίαν (27 υπέρ έναντι 2 κατά) όπως υποβάλη εισήγησιν εις την αρμοδίαν

αρχήν να εξεύρη τρόπον ελλαττώσεως των υπερωριών." [*52]

On the following day, the Secretary

of the Joint Committee of the Police Association, (hereinafter called "the

Secretary") had addressed a letter to the Commander over the question of

extra duties, attaching also a copy of the minutes of their meeting (see

exhibit 4).

On October 12, 1964, the Commander in

reply to the Secretary had this to say in exhibit 9:

*Υπερωρίαι

"Επιθυμώ όπως γνωρίσω λήψιν επιστολής ημερομηνίας 6.10.64 δια τας οποίας

διαβιβάζεται αντίγραφον αποφάσεως της ολομελείας του Συνδέσμου επί του άνωθι

θέματος, πληροφορώ δε υμάς ότι λόγω της εν τη νήσω επικρατούσης καταστάσεως και

των αναφυομένων ποικίλων υπηρεσιών ων η Αστυνομική Δύναμις είναι επιφορτισμένη

να εκτελέση, θέματα ως η παράτασις των ωρών εργασίας, η υπερέντασις και γενικά

αι αντιξοότητες θεωρούνται εν καιροίς χαλαιπαίς ως απαραίτητα φαινόμενα υπό των

εντεταλμένων δια την τήρησιν της τάξεως και την ασφάλειαν της Πολιτείας. Είναι

δε καθήκον της Αστυνομίας ως και παντός νομιμόφρονος πολίτου όπως

μη φειδόμενος χρόνου και συμφερόντων συμβάλλει κατά

δύναμιν εις την κατατρόπωσιν των υπονομευτών του Κράτους.

2. Η Κυβέρνησις αντιληφθείσα το

επιτελούμενον υπό της Αστυνομίας υπέροχον έργον ενέκρινε κατ' αρχήν την καταβολήν ενός μικρού χρηματικού χορηγήματος δια [*53] την

κάλυψιν μέρους των απαραιτήτων ατομικών εξόδων άτινα συνεπέφερε μία κατάστασις

παρατεταμένου συναγερμού, και το οποίον κατεβάλλετο δι' αρκετόν χρονικόν

διάστημα. Μη δυναμένη όμως ν' ανθέξη εις την καταβολήν του επιδόματος τούτου,

λόγω των άλλων απαραιτήτων και σοβαρωτέρων εξόδων, διέταξε την αποκοπήν της

καταβολής τούτου.

3. Παρ' όλον ότι αναγνωρίζεται

πλήρως η συνεχής παρακράτησις μελών της υπηρεσίας εις τους τόπους της εργασίας

των, εν τούτοις δεν δύναμαι να προβώ εις την χαλάρωσιν του μέτρου τούτου, λόγω

των υπό της υπηρεσίας απαιτουμένων αναγκών.

4. Παρακαλείσθε δε όπως φέρητε τα

άνωθι εις γνώσιν όλων των μελών του Συνδέσμου."

It is observed that In this exhibit

the Commander, in effect, in his reply was telling the police association that

he was unable to relax his instructions for extra duty because of reasons of

necessity due to emergency. He further requested that the contents of his

letter should be communicated to all members of the police association.

Pausing here for a moment, I consider

it incumbent on me to express also my appreciation for the excellent work

carried out by members of the police force during the tragic days of Cyprus and

to express the hope that the police association will continue, not sparing any

efforts and, responsibly in full co-operation with the appropriate authority to

find [*54] ways and means to improve

the conditions of service regarding the whole force. However, it would be also

desirable in my view, that the Government should not only express its

appreciation, but to show more understanding and try through the machinery of

negotiations to put its recognition into more practical effect in the interest

of all concerned. Needless to add that the Police Regulations need a lot of

amendments to meet the present day realities.

The matter, however, even after that

letter (exhibit 6), continued to worry the police association, and on January

30, 1965, again the Secretary wrote to the Commander (exhibit 7), requesting

him to re-examine the question for extra duty and to find ways and means to

satisfy the members of the police force.

On February 11 , 1965, Mr. Antoniou,

on behalf of the Commander, in reply to the Secretary on the question of extra

duty, said in exhibit 8 that, the present conditions did not justify the

relaxation of the extra duties carried out by members of the force. However,

again it appears that the matter has not been forgotten by the police

association, and an extraordinary meeting was convened on June 11, 1965, in

order to discuss the same pressing, question of extra duties. On June 18, 1965,

the Secretary wrote to the Commander (exhibit 9), putting forward the reasons

of the decision reached at the meeting, and in paragraph 5, he has concluded as

follows: [*55]

*"5.

Εν τέλει ο Σύνδεσμος λαμβάνων υπ' όψιν την ευημερίαν των αστυνομικών και την

προάσπισιν των εκ των Κανονισμών της Αστυνομίας απορρεουσών δικαιωμάτων των

παρακαλεί υμάς όπως προβήτε εις τας αναγκαίας διευθετήσεις ούτως ώστε

αστυνομικοί και πυροσβέσται εργάζονται εφεξής συμφώνως του Κανονισμού 15 των

περί Αστυνομίας (Γενικών) Κανονισμών και εάν θεωρείται εισέτι σκόπιμον και

αναγκαίον οι αστυνομικοί και οι πυροσβέσται να εξακολουθήσουν να εργάζωνται

υπερωρίας τότε αι πρόνοιαι του εν λόγω Κανονισμού εφαρμοσθούν πλήρως."

There was further correspondence

between the Commander and the Police Association as well as with the

Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, who was informed about the

complaints of the Police Association on the question of having to work

overtime. And, on July 18, 1966, Mr. Antoniou, on behalf of the Commander,

addressed a letter to the Director-General putting forward the complaints of

the Police Association and in paragraph 5 he says in the clearest language

(exhibit 13) paragraph 5(a) an d (b) :

"5.

(α) Την καταβολήν επιδόματος υπερωριών εις δικαιολογημένας περιπτώσεις συμφώνως

των κανονισμών ή

(β) τον περιορισμόν των ωρών

εργασίας εις το κανονικόν εβδομαδιαίον ωράριον με όλας τας προς τούτο επιπτώσεις." [*56]

There is no doubt that in both letters,

exhibits 9 and 13, both writers

had in mind the same pressing question that when members of the Police were

called upon in the future to carry out again any extra duties then in each case

the Police Regulations ought to have been followed regarding the allowances to

be paid but nothing was said about the retrospective payment of the commuted

allowance.

On July 20, 1966,

the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior,

fully realising the difficulties of the Police Force, in reply to the Commander

had this to say in exhibit 12:

*"Ενετάλην

όπως αναφερθώ εις την ετιστολήν σας υπ' Αρ. 159/8 ημερομηνίας 18.7.66 και να

σας πληροφορήσω ότι η Κυβέρνησις εκτιμά το έργον της Αστυνομίας ως και τας

δυσκολίας άτινας αύτη αντιμετωπίζει με την παρούσαν κατάστασιν.

2. Αι υπερωρίαι των Αστυνομικών και

τα επίμοχθα καθήκοντα των απετέλεσαν προσφάτως αντικείμενον μελέτης υπό της

Κυβερνήσεως προς τον σκοπόν όπως αυξηθή η αριθμητική δύναμις της Αστυνομίας.

Ελπίζεται ότι λίαν προσεχώς η Κυβέρνησις θα αποφασίση επί του θέματος τούτου

οπότε η κατάστασις θα βελτιωθή.

3. Εν τω μεταξύ εισηγούμεθα όπως αι

ώραι εργασίας των αστυνομικών των επιφορτισμένων με καθήκοντα εις σημεία

ελέγχου, άτινα είναι και τα πλέον [*57]

επίμοχθα εις ωρισμένα εξ αυτών,

περιορισθώσι εις

4 αντί των συνήθων 8 ωρών, τας δε

υπολοίπους ώρας εργάζωνται εις άλλα ολιγώτερον κοπιαστικά καθήκοντα. Τούτο θα

άρη δικαιολογημένα παράπονα.

4. Εν όψει της παραγράφου δύο

ανωτέρω το Υπουργείον δεν φρονεί ότι δικαιολογείται η προώθησις του ζητήματος

της πληρωμής υπερωριών, αι δαπάναι την οποίων είναι, ως γνωρίζετε, υπέρογκοι,

και εκτός της δυνατότητος της Κυβερνήσεως να αναλάβη. Το γεγονός ότι μικρός

αριθμός υπαλλήλων άλλων Τμημάτων πληρώνεται υπερωρίας δεν είναι αρκετόν να

δικαιολογή παρομοίαν μεταχείρησιν."

Apparently, as a result of the

correspondence I have just read and because the position in Cyprus had in the

meantime improved, no extra duties were assigned to the members of the Police

Force as from July £22, 1966, and for a period of nearly three years nothing

more was heard regarding the past payment of the commuted allowances of £2 per

week.

However, this question was again

discussed at a meeting of the Police Association on January 24, 1969, and on

April 18, 1969, and on May 19, 1969 the new Secretary, Mr. Karaolas, wrote to

the Commander, exhibit 14, attaching also exhibit 15, which is an application

form. Exhibit 14 reads as follows: [*58]

"Πληροφορώ υμάς ότι το ως άνω

θέμα συνεζητήθη υπό της Μικτής Επιτροπής των Συνδέσμων των κατωτέρων τάξεων της

Αστυνομίας εις τας συνεδρίας της 24.1.69 και 18.4.69.

2. Κατόπιν γνωματεύσεως του Νομικού

Συμβούλου του Συνδέσμου απεφασίσθη όπως έκαστον μέλος της Δυνάμεως το οποίον

διαρκούσης της ως άνω περιόδου ειργάσθη υπερωρίας υποβάλη κατάστασιν των

υπερωριώv του προς πληρωμήν συμφώνως της επιστολής του

Υπουργείου Οικονομικών 371/59 ημερ. 27.1.64 και των περί Αστ. Καν. 15(3) και

29(3)(α).

3. Η απόφασις αύτη ήτις

εκοινοποιήθη προς τα μέλη της Αστυνομικής Δυνάμεως κατόπιν διαπιστώσεως ότι το

παρεχόμενον δι' υπερωρίας επίδομα εκ £2.- εβδομαδιαίως έπαυσε πληρωνόμενον από

της 8.7.64 συμφώνως διαταγής Αρχ. 159/8 ημερ. 14.7.64 καθ' ον χρόνον η

Αστυνομία ευρύσκετο συνεχώς εις πλήρη συναγερμόν και έκαστον μέλος ειργάζετο

υπερωρίας ως και πρότερον, επιστολή Αρχ. Αρ. Φακ. 159/8 ημερομηνίας 22.7.66 ως

και η υπό τον ίδιον Αρ. Φακ. επιστολή ημερομηνίας 18.7.66 του Αρχηγού προς το

Υπουργείον Εσωτερικών και η εις αυτήν απάντησις του Υπουργείου Αρ. Φακ.

228/60/11 ημερ. 20.7.66 είναι σχετική.

4. Το συνημμένον έντυπον είναι ο τύπος

αιτήσεως όστις θα υποβληθή υφ' ενός εκάστου των μελών της Δυνάμεως δια τας

υπερωρίας της προαναφερθείσης περιόδου." [*59]

On May 28, 1969, Mr. Antoniou thought

fit to place before the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior the views

of the Police Associations and had this to say in exhibit 18:

*"Αποστέλλω

προς υμετέραν ενημέρωσιν αντίγραφον επιστολής του Γραμματέως του Συνδέσμου

Αστυνομίας Κύπρου εν σχέσει προς υπερωρίας εργασθείσας υπό μελών του Συνδέσμου

κατά την περίοδον από 8.7.64- 22.7.66, ως και της συναποσταλείσης εντύπου

αιτήσεως την οποίαν ητοίμασε ο Σύνδεσμος.

2. Ως γνωστόν το εκ £2.-

εβδομαδιαίως επίδομα δι' υπερωρίας επληρώνατο από 21.12.63 μέχρι 7.7.64 ότε η

Κυβέρνησις λόγω οικονομικής περισυλλογής απεφάσισε την διακοπήν τούτου. Συναφώς

εξεδόθη τότε σχετική εγκύκλιος - Αρχ. 159/8 ημερ. 14.7.64 αντίγραφον της οποίας

εκοινοποιήθη υμίν - εις την οποίαν αναφέρετο ότι ανεμένετο από πάντας ότι θα

επεδείκνυον κατανόησιν και θα εθυσίαζον το επίδομα χάριν της γενικής

προσπαθείας δι' ενίσχυσιν της Κυβερνήσεως να αντεπεξέλθη εις τας βαρείας

οικονομικάς ανάγκας αίτινες εδημιουργήθησαν λόγω της καταστάσεως. Ουδεμία

διαμαρτυρία υπεβλήθη μετά την έκδοσιν και κυκλοφορίαν της προαναφερθείσης

εγκυκλίου.

3. Αρκετά μέλη της Δυνάμεως έχουν

ήδη συμπληρώσει και υποβάλει προς εμέ την άνω αναφερομένην

[*60] έντυπον αίτησιν, δι'

αναδρομικήν πληρωμήν υπερωριών. Αφού ελεγχθούν θα αποσταλούν προς υμάς δια

περαιτέρω μελέτην και απόφασιν."

On June 7, 1969,

Mr. Antoniou on behalf of the Commander in reply to the Secretary, said in

exhibit 19:-

*"Εν συνεχεία της επιστολής μου υπό τον αυτόν ως άνω Αρ. Φ., ημερομηνίας 26.5.69 πληροφορείσθε ότι

αντίγραφον της επιστολής, σας υπ' αρ. Φ.ΣΑΚ 3, ημερομηνίας 19.5.69, εν σχέσει

προς το ύπερθεν θέμα, απεστάλη εις τον Γενικόν Διευθυντήν Υπουργείου

Εσωτερικών, όστις παρέθεσε την κατωτέρω απάντησιν

Αρχηγόν Αστυνομίας,

Ενετάλην να αναφερθώ εις την

επιστολήν σας υπ' αρ. Φακ. 159/16 και ημερομηνίαν 28ην Μαίου, 1969, εν σχέσει

προς την πρόθεσιν μελών του Συνδέσμου Αστυνομίας Κύπρου όπως υποβάλουν αίτησιν

δια την αναδρομικήν πληρωμήν εις αυτούς υπερωριών, και να σας πληροφορήσω ότι

το περιεχόμενον της εν λόγω επιστολής σας εσημειώθη υπό του Υπουργού Εσωτερικών

όστις φρονεί ότι θα ήτο λίαν λυπηρόν δια τα μέλη της Αστυνομίας να προβούν εις

τοιαύτην ενέργειαν." [*61]

It is to be observed that on this

exhibit there appears a long note made by Mr. Antoniou on the 9th of the same

month to the effect that he saw the members of the Joint Committee in his

office and that he explained to them their position with regard to the payment

of extra duties to members of the Police Force.

On June 11, 1969, the Ag. Commander

addressed a letter, exhibit 17, to the Police Divisional Commanders in these

terms:

*"Ως γνωστόν κατόπιν αποφάσεως της Μικτής Επιτροπής του Συνδέσμου

Αστυνομίας συνεπληρώθησαν και απεστάλησαν μέσω υμών εις το Αρχηγείον υπό

αρκετών μελών του Συνδέσμου ειδικαί προς τούτο έντυποι αιτήσεις δια αναδρομικήν

πληρωμήν υπερωριών ως προς την ως άνω αναφερομένην περίοδον.

2. Αι αποσταλείσαι αιτήσεις

επιστρέφονται ώδε ίνα αύται επανυποβληθούν αφού προηγουμένως ελεγχθούν υφ' υμών

προς διαπίστωσιν και επιβεβαίωσιν ή άλλως των εν αυταίς αναφερομένων στοιχείων.

3. Αι αιτήσεις μελών άτινα κατά την

διάρκειαν της υπό αναφοράν περιόδου υπηρέτουν εις ετέραν Επαρχίαν δέον όπως

αποσταλούν εις την Αστυνομικήν Διεύθυνσιν όπου ειργάζοντο δια την διεξαγωγήν

του νενομισμένου ελέγχου και την σχετικήν επιβεβαίωσιν. Κατόπιν τούτου να

επιστραφούν εις [*62] την Αστυνομικήν Διεύθυνσιν όπου έκαστος των αιτητών νυν υπηρετεί δια να

υποβληθούν μετά των υπολοίπων αιτήσεων της Επαρχίας."

On September 23, 1969, the Secretary addressed a new letter (exhibit 20) to the Commander

and said:

*"2.

O Σύνδεσμος εις την τελευταίαν αυτού τακτικήν συνεδρίαν

της 5.9.69, απεφάσισε όπως δια το θέμα των υπερωριών κατατεθή προσφυγή εις το

Ανώτατον Δικαστήριον.

3. Επειδή αντιλαμβανόμεθα ότι

είχατε διατάξει την διεξαγωγήν ερεύνης δια το ζήτημα των υπερωριών προτού

προβώμεν εις οιασδήποτε ενεργείας, παρακαλούμεν όπως γνωστοποιηθή ημίν το

πόρισμα της τοιαύτης ερεύνης ως και η θέσις του Αρχηγείου

επί του ζητήματος."

On September 26, Mr. Antoniou on

behalf of the Commander, in reply said in Exh. 21:

"3.

Περαιτέρω φρονώ ότι μία προσφυγή κατά το παρόν στάδιον δεν θα εξυπηρέτει τα

καλώς νοούμενα συμφέροντα της Δυνάμεως καθ' ότι ίσως αύτη να εδημιούργει

ατμόσφαιραν παρεξηγήσεως, δυνάμεθα όμως να χρησιμοποιήσωμεν το θέμα υπερωριών

ως επιχείρημα δια να υποστηρίξωμεν την υιοθέτησιν υπό της Κυβερνήσεως ευνοϊκωτέρων

ορών υπηρεσίας. [*63] Ουδείς εξ ημών

δύναται να ισχυρισθή ότι όταν η Κύπρος εκινδύνευε και τα μέλη της Δυνάμεως

εκλήθησαν όπως προσφέρουν τας υπηρεσίας των προς αντιμετώπισιν της Τουρκικής

Ανταρσίας έπραξαν τούτο αποβλέποντες εις οιαδήποτε οικονομικά οφέλη. Συνεπώς

εάν τώρα προσφύγωμεν εις το Ανώτατον Δικαστήριον δια την πληρωμήν υπερωριών

υπάρχει το ενδεχόμενον να παρεξηγηθώμεν και ούτω να μειώσωμεν το ύψος και την

αξίαν της συμβολής της Αστυνομίας εις τον κοινόν Εθνικόν Αγώνα. Ουδέποτε ο

πατριωτισμός των μελών της Αστυνομίας ετέθη εν αμφιβόλω είμαι δε βέβαιος ότι

και υμείς δεν θα ηθέλατε να θεωρηθούν αι ενέργειαι μας ως αποβλέπουσαι εις την

μείωσιν του γοήτρου ή του καλού ονόματος της Δυνάμεως. "

I should have

also added that the Police Association had also addressed a submission (exhib.

25) to the Minister of the Interior, regarding the payment of overtime from the

period of 8.7.1964-22.7.1966, and at page 4 letter M had this to say:-

*"Οι

Αστυνομικοί ζητούν επίδομα διατροφής και τούτο ουχί βάσει του Κανονισμού 29(3)

(α) αλλά συντμημένον επίδομα διατροφής συμφώνως του Κανονισμού 29(3)(δ) ήτοι

£2. εβδομαδιαίως."

I think that I should have added in

order to complete the whole picture that in accordance with the evidence of Mr.

Karaolas regarding the purpose of the enquiry, [*64] he admitted in evidence that the contents of exhibit 19 were

correctly presented by Mr. Antoniou in his handwriting. He further agreed that

the said enquiry which was carried out by the Divisional Commanders was made in

order to inform the Commander of the amount of extra hours worked by members of

the police force, in order that the said information would be placed before the

Government for the purpose of securing better terms during the negotiations

between the Government and the police side. Moreover, in accordance with the

evidence of the same witness, it is clear that because he was also the cashier

and he was paying the commuted allowance of £2 to each police officer who

carried out extra duties, when such payment was stopped, he would inform each

member who claimed from him the said allowance, of the decision of the

Commander. Be that as it may, the hearing of the three cases started on March

2, 1970, and on November 16, both counsel agreed that the Court should decide

first the point of law raised in paragraph 2 of the opposition, viz., that

these recourses were filed out of time.

Counsel for the applicants made three

propositions to which counsel for the respondent took exception. The first

proposition was that, these recourses have not been filed out of time and are

not contrary to paragraph 3 of Article 146, because there was a continuous

omission on behalf of the respondents to pay the commuted allowance of £2 due

to each member of the police force. In support of his proposition he relies on

the case of Hassan Mustafa and The Republic, (Chief Revenue

Officer) 1 R.S.C.C. 44. [*65]

Before dealing with the submission of

counsel, I consider it constructive to quote paragraph 1 of Article 146 which

reads as follows:-

"The Supreme Constitutional Court shall have

exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on a recourse made to it on a

complaint that a decision, an act or omission of any organ, authority or person

exercising any executive or administrative authority is contrary to any of the

provisions of the Constitution or of any law or is made in excess or in abuse

of powers vested in such organ or authority or person,"

It is to be observed that the words

"act or decision" appearing in paragraph 1 of Article 146 have

received judicial consideration, and in Eleni Vrahimi and Another v. The

Republic, 4 R.S.C.C. 121 at p. 123, the Court had this to say: -

"Without exhausting in full all aspects of

the said terms, a course which is not necessary in the circumstances of this

case, it is sufficient to state generally that ’a decision or act, in the sense

of paragraph 146, must be such as would directly affect a right or interest

protected by law of a particular person ascertainable at the time of taking

such decision or doing such act'." [*66]

Regarding the word

"omission", which appears also in the same Article of our

Constitution, it appears that such word denotes an omission to do something

required by law, as distinct from the non-doing of a particular act or the non

taking of a particular course where such non-action is the result of an

exercise of a discretion. See Sofoclis Demetriades and Son v. The

Republic, (1969) 1 J.S.C. 24 at p. 30. Again, an omission as envisaged in

our Article 146(1) presupposes that no action has been taken by the

administration in the matter in question. In Turham v. Ozturk v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 35 at p. 41,

the Court had this to say:-

"If, due to the non-securing of the special

absolute majority prescribed by sub-paragraph 3, a

decision in the sense of that sub-paragraph is not taken on a particular

question, then the result is that the Public Service Commission has not been

able to take a valid decision in the discharge of one of its aforesaid duties. Although

the aforesaid result does not amount to a valid decision of the Public Service

Commission in the sense of sub-paragraph 3, it is, nevertheless, the outcome of

action having been taken in the matter, viz., the voting of the members of the

Public Service Commission in a particular way, and, therefore, it does amount

to an act of the Public Service Commission in the sense of paragraph 1 of

Article 146 (hereinafter referred to [*67] as the act of the Public Service

Commission), and is not an omission in the sense of the said paragraph."

In Costas Vafeadis v. The

Republic, (1964) C.L.R. 454 at p. 460, the Court followed the principle

formulated in the Ozturk case, and had this to say:-

"It may be stated at the outset that no question

of an omission can arise, because it is common ground that there exists in this

case an express refusal to transfer applicant; when the administration reaches

a negative decision on an application made to it, this decision may be

challenged as such by appropriate proceedings, but it is not possible to

complain, at the same time, that such a course amounts also to an omission of the

administration, because an omission, as envisaged under Article 146(1),

pre-supposes that no action has been taken in the matter."

It may, of course, be necessary to

distinguish between a decision and an omission for calculating the 75 days time

limit under paragraph 3 of Article 146, because in the case of an act or a

decision which has been published, this period begins to run from the date of

the publication. If not published, however, and in the case of an omission, the said

period of 75 days is calculated from the day it came to the knowledge of the

person making the recourse. [*68] In the case of a continuing

omission, relied upon by counsel for the applicants, the said period does not

begin to run so long as the omission is continuing.

The facts which appear from the

headnote of Mustafa case supra, are that in November 1956, unknown

persons set fire to applicant’s sheepfold at Morphou, destroying his sheep and

other property. In January, 1957, the District Officer (then Commissioner) Nicosia, confirmed the

list prepared by the Mukhtar in accordance with the Recovery of Compensation

for Injury to Property Law, Cap. 84, but up to the date of the hearing of this

case no warrant was issued under section 4 of the Tax Collection Law, Cap. 329. The Court had this

to say at p. 47 regarding the question of omission:-

"The Court is of the opinion that the nature

of the alleged omission in this case was such that it continued after the 16th

August, 1960, and could be said to have continued till the date on which the

application was filed, and indeed, even till the date of the hearing. Where the

omission, therefore, as in the present case, is of a continuous nature, and has

continued on or after the 16th August, 1960, this Court has jurisdiction to

adjudicate on a recourse concerning such a continuing omission notwithstanding

that the omission originally commenced prior to the 16th August, 1960". [*69]

Later on they said: -

"Once the Court has come to the conclusion

that the alleged omission in question could he said to have continued up to the

date of the hearing there can be no question of the application being filed out

of time under paragraph 3 of Article 146."

In Mourtouvanis and Sons limited v. The Republic, (1966) 2 J.S.C. 160, the Court had this to

say at p. 167, where a distinction had been made between a non-continuing

omission and an omission of a continuing nature:-

"I have given this issue careful

consideration, and I am of the opinion that inasmuch as the nature of the

complaint in respect of which this recourse has been made is an omission to

return the disputed goods, and the exemption certificates, and such omission

was still continuing on the date on which the application in this case was

filed, the matter should be regarded as a continuing omission for the purposes

of paragraph 3 of Article 146 of the Constitution, and I accordingly hold that

this recourse is not out of time."

Supreme Court dismisses police overtime allowance claim as recourse filed after 75-day constitutional limit.

Sintesi Legislator

Regesto Legislator

Parole chiave

Disposizioni normative citate

Decisioni correlate

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Testo completo