|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
Κυπριακή νομολογία στην οποία κάνει αναφορά η απόφαση αυτή:
Μεταγενέστερη νομολογία η οποία κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή:
Δεν έχει εντοπιστεί απόφαση η οποία να κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή
(1989) 3A CLR 319
1989 March 4
[MALACHTOS, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTATION
THE BOARD OF THE PANCYPRIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION,
Applicant,
v.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH,
Respondent.
(Case No. 131/88)
Constitutional Law-Requests or complaints to competent public authority - Constitution, Art. 29- Request addressed to the Director-General of Ministry, who transmitted it to the competent organ - No question of omission to reply arises as far as the Director is concerned.
Abatement of Recourse for annulment - Omission to reply to a request addressed to public authority - Constitution, Art. 29 - Reply following the filing of the Recourse - Recourse abated.
The applicants addressed .a request to the respondent Director-General of the Ministry of Health, who in the light of the nature of the request, transmitted it to the organ concerned. i.e. the pharmaceutici1 services.
As the applicants did not receive a reply within the period limited by Art.29 of the Constitution, they filed the present recourse. Following the filing of the recourse, the pharmaceutical services replied to the applicants.
The grounds on which the Court dismissed the present recourse appears sufficiently in the hereinabove Headnotes.
Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
Xenophontos v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 89,
Siaftacolas v. Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 1268,
Karaliotas v. Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 501,
Antoniou v. Nicosia Municipality (1986) 3 C.L.R. 2640.
Recourse.
Recourse against the omission of the respondent to reply to applicant's letter of the 14th September, 1987.
Ch. loannides, Chairman of the Applicant Board.
A Vladimirou, Counsel of the Republic B, for the Respondent.
Cur. Adv. vult.
MALACHTOS, J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant Board seeks, as stated therein, a declaration of the Court that the omission of the respondent to reply to the letter of the applicant Board of 14.9.87 ought not to have made and that whatever has been omitted ought to have been performed.
The relevant facts of the case are as follows:-
On 14.9.87 the applicant Board wrote to the respondent Director-General suggesting, inter alia, for the purpose of assisting the candidates taking the examinations of Forensic Pharmacy, that the Department of Pharmaceutical Services should,
(1) prepare a list of the whole of the examination syllabus, that is the Laws, Regulations, Orders and all their amendments;
(2) prepare copies of all the examination papers of Forensic Pharmacy, of all previous years which should be made available to all candidates free of charge or upon payment, and
(3) consolidate all the Pharmacy legislation which should be made available to all candidates free of charge or upon payment.
This letter was forwarded by the respondent to the Department of Pharmaceutical Services on 25.9.87 for its views.
A reminder was sent to the respondent by the applicant on 6. 11.87.
Having received no reply, the applicant Board filed the present recourse on 15.2.88, challenging the omission of the respondent to reply to their request as being contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution. This Article reads as follows:
"1. Every person has the right individually complaints or jointly with others to address written requests or complaints to any competent public authority and to have them attended to and decided expeditiously; an immediate notice of any such decision taken duly reasoned shall be given to the person making the request or complaint arid in any event within a period not exceeding thirty days.
2. Where any interested person is aggrieved by any such decision or where no such decision is notified to such person within the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, such person may have recourse to a competent court in the matter of such request or complaint."
On the same day, however, the Director of Pharmaceutical Services submitted to the respondent Director-General his views, comments and suggestions in respect of the letter of the applicant Board. This reply was forwarded to the applicant by the respondent on 24.2.88. On 18.4.88 the Chairman of the applicant Board replied to the respondent expressing his disagreement.
Looking into the correspondence exchanged between the parties, it is obvious that the matter was dealt with by the organ concerned i.e. the Pharmaceutical Services to which the letter of the applicant Association had been properly forwarded by the respondent, who, assuming he had any duty to do so, cannot he considered to have been liable of any omission. The applicant cannot, therefore, pursue the recourse under Article 29 of the Constitution. Moreover, no material detriment has been established as a result of any failure to reply within the .30 days time limit on the assumption, of course, that such reply could have been given within the aforesaid period (see Charilaos Xenophontos v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C.89 at p.93).
Furthermore, once a reply was given, even if. such reply was after the filing of the recourse, the present recourse had been abated and cannot 'be pursued any further for ladk of legitimate interest which, assuming the applicant had any, must exist not only when filing the recourse but also at the time of hearing. (See Siaftacolas v. The Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 1268 at 1280-1281; Tsatsos Recourse for Annulment, 3rd edition, p.51; Karaliotas v. The Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 501 at 507; and Antoniou v. Nicosia Municipality (1986) .3 C.L.R. 2640 at 2643).
For the above reasons, this recourse fails and is hereby dismissed.
On the question of costs I make no order.
Recourse dismissed No order as
to costs.