|
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
(1987) 3 CLR 296
[DEMETRIADES, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
TEKNE V.R.C. SP.A. AND TOUROONSULT, OF
ITALY, WITH A. THEODOSSIADES AND K.
PAPADOPOULOS,
Applicants,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
1. THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS,
2. THE TENDER BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
3. THE CYPRUS TOURISM ORGANISATION,
Respondents.
(Case No.331/86).
Recourse for annulment - Revocation of sub judice decision - Whether and in what circumstances the applicant is entitled to judgment on the merits.
The sub judice decision, whereby the tender for the submission of studies and plans for the touristic development of Paphos was awarded to a firm other than the applicants, was revoked after the filing of this recourse and thus the question arose whether, the applicants, who were among the tenderers, are entitled to judgment on the merits.
Held, annulling the sub judice decision, that in the light of the decisions in Salem v. The Republic (1985)3 C.L.R. 453 at 454-455 and Agathangelou v. The Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 1512 and as on the material before the Court the conclusion is that the respondents were wrong in accepting the tender of the successful tenderers, the sub judice decision should be annulled.
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
Salem v. The Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 453;
Agathangelou v. The Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 1512.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondents to award the tender for the touristic development of Paphos area to a firm other than the applicants.
A. S. Angelides, for the applicants.
N Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment. The issue that arises in these proceedings is whether, in spite of the revocation by the administrative organ which took the sub judice decision, the applicants are entitled to a remedy under Article 146 of the Constitution.
The facts that led to this litigation are, in a nutshell, the following:
The Government of the Republic, in association with the Cyprus Tourism Organization, in their desire that the Paphos District is further developed as far as touristic facilities are concerned, asked national and international experts to submit studies and plans for the touristic development of the area. Several international organizations submitted tenders to the Central Tender Board of the Government, out of which four were short- listed, one of them being the applicants of the recourse.
The administrative organs, that is the respondents who were entrusted with deciding to which organization to grant the tender, finally decided in favour of another firm. The applicants, as a result, filed the present recourse claiming, amongst others, that the successful tenderer did not comply with the terms and conditions required by the respondents.
After the filing of this recourse me respondents sought advice from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic and as a result of the advice they received they revoked the sub judice decision.
Counsel for the applicants submitted that in spite of the revocation of the sub judice decision the recourse has to be examined on its merits since the said decision has brought about consequences in relation to which the applicants may be entitled to damages or other remedy.
In Salem v. The Republic, (1985) 3 C.L.R. 453 at 454-455, Triantafyllides P. had this to say on the issue:
«As the sub judice detention order appears to have been executed and as its execution was interwoven with the execution of the sub judice deportation order which, in the end, was not completed, I am of the view that this is not a case in which it is proper to say that this recourse has been abated due to having been deprived of its subject-matter; especially as it seems, that the aforementioned two orders while they were operative have brought about consequences in relation to which, if the applicant is successful in this recourse, he might be entitled to seek redress under Article 146.6 of the Constitution.»
A. Loizou J., in Agathangelcu v. The Republic (Judgment delivered in Recourses Nos. 779/85, 876/85, 888/85 and 991/85, on the 9th October, 1986, not yet reported) is in full agreement with the legal position expressed in Salem's case, supra.
I am, also, in full agreement with the interpretation of the legal position as given by my brother Judges.
Having gone through the exhibits put at my disposal by counsel for the respondents, which give particulars of the tenders asked by the respondents, and having studied the offer of the successful tenderer, I find that the respondents were wrong in accepting the offer and that the sub judice decision should be annulled.
Order accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs as none are claimed.
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order as to costs.