Cyprus’s Supreme Constitutional Court has put a definitive end to a multi-year legal battle by a former police officer seeking tens of thousands of euros in compensation for overtime he said he worked as part of a political party leader’s security detail, ruling he is entitled only to the flat-rate allowance set out in law.
The overtime in question covered the period from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, when the officer served in the Special Service for the Protection of Personalities.
In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the Administrative Court’s earlier finding that the appellant is not entitled to compensation based on the actual overtime hours he claims to have worked, but only to the flat-rate allowance set out in the regulations governing police members who carry out overtime duties on a regular basis.
The case had a long judicial history. The officer’s original request to the Chief of Police had been rejected on the grounds that he had not followed the required procedures for submitting overtime forms. The Administrative Court had twice annulled the relevant decisions for insufficient reasoning and inadequate investigation, leading to repeated reconsiderations of the case.
During the proceedings, the Auditor General took the position that, under Regulation 17(3)(b) of K.D.P. 51/89, members of the Special Service for the Protection of Personalities who work overtime on a regular basis are not entitled to hourly pay, but to a flat-rate allowance. The Attorney General adopted the same position.
Following a further review, police decided to pay the appellant €2,152.80, corresponding to the flat-rate overtime allowance for the period in dispute. He accepted the amount with reservation and continued to pursue a larger sum through the courts, arguing that he worked systematically beyond normal hours and was entitled to a much higher amount.
In his appeal, he argued, among other points, that the principle of res judicata from the earlier annulment rulings had been violated, along with the principles of good administration and good faith. He also cited a Police Accounts Office report which, he argued, valued his overtime at approximately €53,000, though at the appeal hearing he reduced his claim to approximately 9,000 Cyprus pounds.
The Supreme Constitutional Court rejected most of the grounds of appeal as inadmissible, ruling that they had not been raised with the required clarity in the original application, as procedural rules require.
On the res judicata argument, the Court found that the earlier annulment rulings had not recognised any right for the appellant to receive the amount he was claiming, but had been limited to finding that the administration’s rejection decisions had not been sufficiently reasoned.
The Court also agreed with the first-instance finding that the appellant’s case falls under Regulation 17(3)(b), which provides for a flat-rate allowance for police members who carry out overtime duties on a regular basis, rather than compensation based on hours worked. The Court noted that the principles of good administration cannot override the administration’s obligation to apply the law.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the Court ordered costs of €3,500 against the appellant and in favour of the Republic of Cyprus.