6.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Limassol, Cyprus. 7.  The applicants were, at the material time, senior officers in the Cypriot Police Force in which they served until retirement. They both served continuously with an interruption of one year and nine months under the conditions set out below. 8.  On an unspecified date in 1992, criminal proceedings were initiated against them in relation to their alleged involvement in the ill-treatment and torture of suspects. The prosecuting authorities failed to prove a prima facie case against them and they were acquitted on 23 July 1993. The court considered that the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses - the victim and one of his relatives who had been arrested with him- “had been so obviously unreliable that no reasonable court could rely on it and convict the accused”. It also considered that the prosecution had committed a series of improprieties which had tainted the evidence to such an extent that the case against the applicants should be discontinued in the interests of the proper administration of justice. 9.  Subsequently, on 3 September 1993, the Ministerial Council appointed an Independent Investigating Commission (IIC) to examine this matter further. The Commission's findings were delivered on 3 November 1995. It found that the applicants, together with nine other police officers, had engaged in torture practices against certain suspects in order to obtain confessions. On the basis of the Commission's findings, on 7 March 1996, the Ministerial Council terminated the applicants' employment with the Police Force for the protection of public interest. One other police officer was also dismissed by virtue of the same decision, while five junior officers who were also found to have been involved in acts of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners were not dismissed. The applicants' dismissal was widely reported in the national press. 10.  The applicants challenged the legality of the said decision before the Supreme Court, exercising its administrative judicial review jurisdiction. 11.  The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a plenary session on 26 November 1997. It unanimously annulled the decision of the Ministerial Council which was found to have violated the constitutional rights of the applicants. In particular, it found that their right not to be tried twice for the same offence had been breached and that their right to be presumed innocent, especially in the light of their acquittal, had been prejudiced. It further found that the applicants had effectively been dismissed without trial or disciplinary proceedings and, as such, they had been deprived of any opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, the decision of the Ministerial Council was found to be ultra vires. 12.  On 28 November 1997, the applicants requested reinstatement to their former posts. On 5 December 1997 they returned to duty. 13.  Subsequently, the applicants brought an action under Article 146.6 of the Constitution before the District Court of Nicosia requesting fair and equitable compensation. 14.  Judgment was delivered on 30 April 2000 by the District Court, which refused the applicants' request for exemplary damages. Concerning their request for payment of the difference in their monthly salaries, corresponding to the period in which their service had been interrupted, the court observed that the applicants had received a higher amount upon their dismissal than the requested difference in salaries. This amount had been held by the first applicant throughout the period following his return to duty and until his retirement and it was still held by the second applicant. As regards the first applicant, the amount he had received upon his dismissal had been deducted from the amount to which he was entitled by virtue of his retirement and the difference had been paid to him. The request was accordingly refused. 15.  However, 7,500 Cypriot pounds (CYP), plus 8 per cent interest as from the date that the action was lodged, was awarded in compensation for moral damage. The court pointed out that, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Frangoulides v. The Republic (1982) 1 C.L.R. 462, an award of damages under Article 146.6 of the Constitution was not subject to the common-law rule for quantifying damages aimed at restitutio in integrum, but was governed by the principles of equity. It considered that the applicants had suffered injury to their psychological and moral integrity which was directly caused by the annulled decision. In particular, the following was noted:
“Within this framework of criteria (established in the domestic case-law), I do not see any good reason why the court should rule, in a case similar to the present one, where, by the exclusive behaviour of the administration (Ministerial Council) the plaintiffs have been expelled from their positions with characterisations that have definitely affected them psychologically as they themselves have maintained, that they should not be entitled to certain compensation for that injury to their psychological integrity. I consider such injury as damage emanating directly from the annulled administrative decision”. 16.  Moreover, it was acknowledged that the decision had serious defamatory effects for them. As such, the relevant award was seen as required by equity to redress the unlawful act of the administration. 17.  The applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and contended that the award of damages was manifestly insufficient. The Attorney-General lodged a cross-appeal requesting the annulment of the first-instance District Court judgment. 18.  The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 25 April 2005 by which it upheld the first-instance court's decision not to award exemplary damages and reversed the award of moral damages. The court noted that Article 146 (6) of the Constitution entitles a person who sustained injury, as a result of a decision, act or omission by the administration that had been declared null and void , pursuant to Article 146 (4), the right to claim damages or any other remedy from a civil court which may grant fair and equitable compensation. An award of compensation could only be made where the sustained injury had been caused by the annulled act. The administration's duty to comply with the annulment of such an act would require the suppression of all consequences of the annulled act and reinstatement of the status quo ante. Such reinstatement should be complete and address all damaging consequences of the annulled act. The court further noted that “damage” would constitute the loss or injury sustained by a plaintiff as a result of the act on which the cause of action was based. The cause of action provided for in Article 146 (6) of the Constitution was a cause sui generis and was governed by rules of determination of compensation that were different from those provided for in the common law (Frangoulides v. The Republic (1982) 1 C.L.R. 462). The court referred to the case of Egglezakis and others v. The Attorney General of the Republic ((1992) 1 S.C.J. 697), in which the issue as to whether the term “damage” set out in Article 146 (6) was restricted to pecuniary damage or extended to psychological and emotional injury had been left open. The court then stated the following:
“Such moral damage did not constitute a direct consequence of the annulled administrative act and that, therefore, such an award was not covered by the provisions of Article 146 (6) of the Constitution”.