|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1985) 3 CLR 2819
1985 October 15
[A. LOIZOU, SAVVIDES, LORIS, STYLIANIDES, KOURRIS, JJ.]
MODESTOS PITSILLOS,
Appellant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC,
2. THE COMMANDER OF POLICE,
Respondents.
(Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 409).
Administrative Law-Administrative act-Art. 146.1 of the Constitution-Failure to institute criminal proceedings not within the ambit of said Art. 146.1-Document containing information as to the outcome of police investigation-Not an executory act.
In response to a complaint by the appellant that members of the Police Force had been involved in the change of his name and his identity card from the list of voters prepared for the by-election of President of the Republic in 1977 the Chief of Police informed appellant by letter dated 19.10.83 that there had not been secured evidence against any member of the Police Force for any neglect of duty.
The President of this Court dismissed a recourse filed by the appellant as a result of the said letter. Hence the present appeal.
Held, dismissing the appeal (1) In so far as the letter of the Chief of Police contains a decision not to prosecute on account of nondiscovery of the persons responsible for the act complained of by the appellant constitutes a failure to institute Criminal proceedings, the exercise of such authority by the appropriate Organ is not within the ambit of paragraph I of Art. 146 of the Constitution.
(2) In so far as the said letter contained information regarding the outcome of police investigations it is not an executory administrative act.
Appeal dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
Xenophontos v. The Republic, 2 R.SC.C. 89.
Appeal.
Appeal against the judgment of the President of the Supreme Court (Triantafyllides, P.) given on the 23rd June, 1984 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 575/83) whereby appellant's recourses against the contents of the letter of the Chief of Police dated 19.10.1983 relative to appellant's complaint for the, non detection of the Public Officers who according to his contention, changed his name and identity card from the list of voters that had been prepared for the by-election of President of the Republic in 1977, was dismissed.
Appellant appeared in person.
M. Flourentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic with A. Vassiliades, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
A. LOIZOU J.: The recourse of the appellant was dismissed by the, learned President of this Court, who tried the case in the first instance, on the ground that the decision contained in the letter of the Chief of Police dated the 19th October, 1983, challenged by him under Article 146 of the Constitution was an, act of a preliminary character relating to the possibility of the commencement of judicial process and as such not falling within the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 146 of the Constitution.
In support of this conclusion he referred to the case of Xenophontos v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 89 at pp. 92-93, to the Conclusions from the Case Law of the Greek Council of State (1929-1959) p. 230 and to Kyriacopoullos, Greek Administrative Law, 4th Edition, Volume in pp. 91-92.
Moreover the said letter was found by the learned President to be, in any event, a document of informative character and consequently not an executory administrative act and as such it could no t be the subject of a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution. This he based on the constant Case Law f this Court and reference was made in that respect to the cases of HadjiPanayi v. The Municipal Committee of Nicosia (1977) 3 C.L.R. 366; Economides v. The Republic (1980) 3 C.L.R. 219; Kyprianides v. The Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 611 and the as yet unreported judgment in Pavlides v. The Republic Recourses Nos 107/79 and 131)79, delivered on 5th April 1984.
The relevant facts of the case are briefly these. The appellant submitted to the Chief of Police a letter dated 19th September 1983, upon the suggestion of the Attorney- General of the Republic to whom he had originally addressed his complaint, to the effect that members of the Police Force and other public officers had been involved in the change of his name and his identity card from the list of voters that had been prepared for the-by-election of President of the Republic in 1977.
In response to the aforesaid complaint of the appellant the Chief of the Police by letter dated the 19th October 1983, informed him that there had not been secured evidence against any member of the Police Force for neglect of duty.
It was as against the alleged "act/or decision of the respondents dated 19th October, 1983, on the protest of the applicant with reference to the judgment of the Court in Civil Action 2184/82, that intentionally the appropriate officers changed his name and identity card for the Presidential by-election of 1977 and the discovery of the said organs," that the recourse of the appellant was filed.
We have given, to the, incomprehensible at times arguments of the appellant our best consideration and we have perused the relevant documents and we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal.
Having regard to the subject matter of the said complaint contained in the letter of the appellant, and the reply to it by the Chief of the Police, we have come to the conclusion in so far as the said letter contains a decision not to prosecute on account of the nondiscovery of a concrete person or persons as being responsible for the acts complained of by the appellant, same constitutes in effect, as held in the Xenophontos case (supra), a failure to institute criminal proceedings and the exercise of such authority by the appropriate organ of the Republic which in this respect is so closely related to judicial proceedings in criminal cases, is not within the ambit of paragraph 1 of Article 146 of the Constitution and therefore this Court was rightly found by the learned President not to have jurisdiction to entertain such recourse under the said Article.
On the other hand in so far as however, the said letter of the Chief of Police contains merely information regarding the outcome of police investigations as regards the complaint of the appellant, and this appears to be the more certain in our view nature of it, it is not, and in any event it cannot purport to communicate to the appellant an executory administrative act and being only a document of an informative nature, it is not capable of being the subject of a recourse under paragraph 1, of Article 146 of the Constitution.
For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
No order as to costs.