In its recent judgment in Appeal No. 171/20, dated 11 June 2025, the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus delivered a landmark ruling affirming the principle of legality and underlining the duty of the administration to correct its own actions, promptly and without judicial prompting, once these have been annulled by a final court decision.
Factual Background
The Appellant, a permanent public school teacher since 2007, was placed on administrative suspension by the Educational Service Commission (ESC) for a six month period during 2015, while under investigation for alleged misconduct involving inappropriate behaviour of a morally indecent nature. During this period, he received only half of his salary.
The disciplinary process concluded with a finding of guilt solely for inappropriate behaviour (but not to the level of morally indecent nature), with the sanction of a reprimand. However, in Administrative Appeal No. 641/17, after our succesful handling of the case, the Administrative Court annulled the disciplinary conviction by judgment dated 10 January 2020, on the grounds of a complete lack of reasoning, vagueness, and serious procedural irregularities. The judgment became final, as the Republic of Cyprus did not appeal.
Nevertheless, the ESC refused to return the deducted salary, ultimately rejecting the Appellant’s request on 7 November 2017. That decision was challenged in court but dismissed at first instance, leading to the present appeal.
The Judgment of the Supreme Constitutional Court
The Supreme Constitutional Court held that administrative suspension and salary deductions are not independent administrative acts, but are inherently tied to the existence of a valid disciplinary process. Therefore, once the disciplinary conviction was annulled, the legal basis for the suspension and deductions ceased to exist.
Citing the precedents, the Court reaffirmed that suspension cannot stand alone, divorced from a valid underlying disciplinary procedure. The 2020 annulment decision was not a mere subsequent development, but rather decisive in establishing the Appellant’s right to restitution.
The lower court, according to the Supreme Constitutional Court, erred in finding that annulment of the sanction did not create a right to repayment, misinterpreting the legal character of the annulment and adopting a formalistic and mechanistic approach.
The Court’s Remark to the State
The Court’s most striking and institutionally important comment was a direct admonition to the Republic:
“We would have expected that the Republic would have fulfilled its duty without requiring the intervention of the Court.”
This is far from a rhetorical flourish. It reflects the core principle of good administration and the obligation of the State to act ex officio to remedy illegal administrative acts. The five-year inaction following a final annulment was, in the Court’s view, a violation of the principle of legality, and inconsistent with foundational norms of administrative law.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment constitutes a critical precedent, as it:
- Establishes the right to restitution and reinstatement where the disciplinary basis for suspension is invalidated.
- Affirms the mandatory obligation of the administration to comply with annulment judgments of the courts.
- Condemns administrative inertia as institutionally unacceptable in the face of final court rulings.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, annulled the challenged administrative act, and awarded total legal costs of €5,000 in favour of the Appellant.
Conclusion
The ruling serves as a powerful reminder that public authorities are not entitled to remain silent or passive when their acts are declared unlawful. Compliance is not optional, nor should it depend on the persistence of the citizen in pursuing justice through prolonged litigation. The State’s duty to act proactively and in good faith is not only a legal obligation—it is a matter of democratic integrity and institutional honour.
We are proud to have successfully handled this case on behalf of the Appellant.