Cyprus Mail 10 April 2020 -by Evie Andreou
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the appeals by the state against an administrative court decision last year to retroactively reimburse civil servants for salary and benefit cuts introduced in 2011 and 2012 during the financial crisis.
Dismissing the appeals could have cost the state over €1bn.
The majority of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of Article 23 of the Constitution on which the lawsuit against the state was based.
The court said that the measures had been taken for the public good, arguing that they cannot be considered that they negatively affected the dignified living standards of those who brought the case to court.
“Not taking measures could have led to more serious consequences for them,” the Supreme Court ruling said.
Auditor-general Costas Clerides said after the ruling was announced that the freezing and cutting of the civil servants’ benefits at the time was legal and constitutional.
“This sets a precedent so that the state can, under similar circumstances, do the same,” Clerides said.
He added that the state has no obligation to reimburse anyone since the benefit cuts were deemed legal.
“The main message sent out is that individual rights provided for by Article 23 are respected and ensured,” he said, adding that as long as the core of exercising this right is not affected, then the state can introduce some limitations.
The Supreme Court was called to rule on the matter last year after the government appealed against a lower court’s decision that a freeze on incremental pay rises, a 3 per cent contribution to pensions, and a reduction in civil servants’ pay were in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution regarding the protection of the right to property. As such, the pay reductions were deemed null and void and the applicants entitled to compensation, effective immediately. This decision was taken in March last year.
In November of the same year, the government appealed the decision with Clerides arguing that a cut in salaries did not constitute a violation of their right to property. Clerides said Article 23 protected from the arbitrary reduction in salaries without any legislation and secured the right of a worker to a salary, which is a right to property, but it did not establish a right regarding the amount and manner of payment.
The defence had rejected the state’s arguments, saying there could not be a partial deprivation of the right to property. Salaries and pensions were an established right, contractually and legislatively, it said.
The government at the time had also argued that the core of civil servants’ salaries had not been affected by the austerity drive in 2012 nor was their standard of living.
