10.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Nicosia. 11.  From the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and up to his dismissal from the public service, the applicant worked as Governor of the Department of Co-operative Development of the Public Service in Nicosia. On 28 July 1982 the Public Service Commission instituted disciplinary proceedings against him and decided to dismiss him retrospectively by reason of the fact that on 8 April 1981 he had been found guilty by the Nicosia District Court of stealing, breach of trust and abuse of authority. He had been sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. His appeal against both conviction and sentence had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 October 1981. 12.  The Public Service Commission held that the applicant had managed the resources of the above-mentioned department as if it were his private property and spent them for purposes other than those of the department. The disciplinary sanction of dismissal also resulted in the forfeiture of the applicant's retirement benefits, including his pension, in accordance with section 79(7) of the Public Service Law (no. 33/67), from the date of his conviction by the District Court. In Cyprus, pensions are part of the overall employment contract offered to public servants. The pension scheme is non-contributory. 13.  On 8 October 1982 the applicant filed an application with the Supreme Court requesting that the decision to dismiss him from the public service be declared null and void. The applicant's main argument was that the decision had been taken in excess or abuse of power in that the sanction of dismissal, with the consequent forfeiture of retirement benefits, was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. He also contended that the forfeiture was contrary to Article 12 § 2 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right not to be tried or punished twice. He alleged that the forfeiture of his pension rights and the sentence of imprisonment amounted to a double punishment for the same act. 14.  By a judgment delivered on 12 June 1991, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's application and confirmed the Public Service Commission's decision. In particular, the Supreme Court held:
“It has been established by case-law that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to intervene on the subject of the sanction imposed unless it is evident that the disciplinary body has exceeded the limits of its discretionary power.
The Supreme Court's powers in such issues bear no resemblance to its powers while exercising its jurisdiction over the appeal of the district courts' judgments, on which it has the authority to intervene when the decision on the sentence is either incorrect from the outset, evidently excessive or insufficient.
The assessment of the severity of such a disciplinary sanction is outside the limits of this Court's authority (see, among others, Cristofides v. CY.T.A., (1979) 3 C.L.R. 99, and Papacleovoulou v. the Republic, (1982) 3 C.L.R. 187, 196-197).
It has been repeatedly established ... in a series of judgments that an administrative court, during the judgment of an appeal against the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, does not as a rule have the authority to intervene in the essential judgment and assessment of the facts by the competent body. ...
Section 79(1) of Law no 33/67 enumerates a limited number of disciplinary sanctions that can be imposed under the provisions of the same Law. These sanctions include the sanction of dismissal, which, according to section 79(7) of Law no 33/67, results in the loss of all the entitlements upon discharge.
Having carefully examined the case file, as well as the relevant verbatim record, where the ratio decidendi and the statement of reasons are included in detail, I judge that the Public Service Commission imposed the sanction of dismissal on the applicant justly and lawfully, without exceeding the limits of its discretionary power. The Public Service Commission, as it is explicitly reported in the relevant transcript (see Appendix 8 of the Plea) took into account the applicant's various mitigating circumstances before reaching a decision. The Public Service Commission's discretionary power was not related to pension issues, but only to the matter of the sanction. The sanction imposed on the applicant entailed, according to the same Law, the forfeiture of all his entitlements upon discharge.
The judgment in Makrides v. the Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 8, which the applicant's lawyer cited in order to support his submission that the provisions concerning the deprivation of an employee's pension rights are unconstitutional with respect to Article 23 §§ 1 and 2 of the Constitution, does not apply to the present case.
The submission by the applicant's lawyer that there is a contradiction with Article 28 of the Constitution remains unproved.” 15.  The Supreme Court stated that it could review neither the severity of the sanction imposed by a disciplinary body, save if the latter had exceeded the limits of its margin of appreciation, nor the manner in which the body had assessed the facts of the case. It held that the discretion of the Public Service Commission only concerned the nature of the sanction, the loss of retirement benefits being the normal consequence of the particular sanction imposed by the commission. 16.  On 18 July 1991 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court sitting as a court of appeal. Five grounds were included in the notice of appeal. The fifth ground challenged the finding of the Supreme Court sitting as a first-instance court that the loss of retirement benefits was not contrary to Article 23 §§ 1 and 2 of the Constitution. 17.  On 6 December 1996 the applicant filed an application for amendment of his grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court granted the application on 17 January 1997. Amended grounds 3 to 5 read as follows:
“(3)  The finding of the first-instance court that the sanction that was imposed on the applicant by the Public Service Commission was not excessively onerous and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and/or that the Public Service Commission took fully into account the mitigating circumstances during the consideration of the sanction and/or did not exercise its discretionary power in breach of procedure in determining the sanction is erroneous.
According to Article 12 § 3 of the Constitution, the law cannot provide for a penalty that is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The above constitutional requirement introduces in Cyprus the principle of proportionality, according to which there must be a connection (reasonable relation) between the measure taken and the intended purpose; the measure is proportionate only if it is necessary in relation to the facts of the case.
Despite the fact that during the assessment of the penalty the criminal court as well as the administrative body took into account and accepted a series of mitigating circumstances, and in particular that the applicant did not obtain any material gain, the sanction which was finally imposed on him is the heaviest sanction provided by law.
This is a sufficiently serious breach of the principle of proportionality, which was introduced by Article 12 § 3 of the Constitution and is applied in Cypriot jurisprudence and the practice of law itself, particularly in the interpretation of Article 23 of the Constitution. It also constitutes an act beyond the extreme limits that define the framework of actions of the administration when exercising its discretionary power.
(4)  The finding of the court that the Public Service Commission imposed the sanction of dismissal on the applicant correctly and lawfully and without exceeding the limits of its discretion is erroneous.
The principle of a sanction that is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the principle of proportionality during the assessment of the sanction in administrative proceedings certainly define the framework and/or limits of the administrative authority of the administrative body.
The fact that the administrative body adopted and/or took into account the serious mitigating circumstances in favour of the applicant during the assessment of the sanction, but did not avoid imposing the heaviest sanction provided for by law, is an act that lies beyond the extreme limits of the exercise of its discretionary power.
(5)  The finding of the first-instance court that the loss of the applicant's pension rights is not contrary to Article 23 §§ 1 and 2 of the Constitution is erroneous.” 18.  In his opening address on 14 September 1998, the applicant's lawyer, Mr Efstathiou, stated that he would only deal with the third and fourth grounds of the appeal. In particular, according to the verbatim record of the hearing on that date, the following exchange took place between the applicant's lawyer and the Supreme Court:
“Mr Efstathiou: ...
I will be very brief. Essentially, I will only deal with grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal.
Judge Chrysostomis: Do you withdraw the others?
Mr Efstathiou: Indeed, I do.
The Court: The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed and we shall hear your position on grounds 3 and 4.
Mr Efstathiou: I will not deal with these grounds, because ground 1 is badly worded, while ground 2 is covered by grounds 3 and 4.
...
The penalties that can be imposed by the court are listed in section 79(1) of Law no. 33/67. These penalties go from (a) to (j), which means that ten different disciplinary sanctions can be imposed according to the gravity of the offence, each one more severe than the previous one, while the maximum sanction is dismissal. Section 79(7) states that dismissal entails the loss of all entitlements upon discharge.
I shall deal with the amended grounds 3 and 4, and thus ground 5 emanating from them.
Judge Chrysostomis: Will you deal with grounds 3 and 4 as a whole?
Mr Efstathiou: As a whole and the consequences thereof.
...
We cannot, therefore, and with all due respect to the court that delivered the judgment, accept that this Court cannot, in fact, intervene in the decisions of the Public Service Commission, when these deal with issues of sanction. It would, indeed, be extraordinary if this Court were competent to address the decisions of criminal courts, but not competent to address and examine whether the commission, which is a disciplinary court, exceeded the limits of its discretionary power. Not only would this be completely alien to the organisation and construction of the jurisprudence, it would also be extraordinary, because a court could intervene – and I am not saying that it would intervene on appeal, no it is not that. Given that the Court intervenes, why shouldn't it – even more so – intervene there?
...
Judge Chrysostomis: On the issue of disciplinary sanctions.
Mr Efstathiou:
...
When you examine the case, I plead with you to take into account the fact that the dismissal of the appellant resulted in forfeiture of his pension rights. This means that the consequence of his dismissal entailed the additional misfortune of the loss of his pension rights, which were a result of twenty years of contributions to the State. This service of twenty years and more, I submit with respect, creates for the appellant parallel rights to receive a pension, autonomous rights which are based on a legal framework that is independent and autonomous in comparison to other legislative regulations. The creation of public servants' pension funds is regulated separately and is created through deducting part of their emoluments. Thus, by imposing this sanction on the appellant, other parallel and autonomous rights were infringed, which should not escape the attention of the Supreme Court of Cyprus. These are acquired rights to which an employee is entitled to for every month of offering his service to the State, in parallel with the right to acquire the payment of a salary. For every month of work, he receives his salary and also has another entitlement, which is preserved in order to be given to him when he is discharged, and which at the same time constitutes an autonomous right. This is the right every employee has to a pension as part of his emoluments. He has another benefit, secret, hidden, but 'activated' from the day he leaves the service.
Consequently, the imposed sanction of dismissal has the following direct consequences, which are all contrary to constitutional rights and the fundamental principles of law and jurisprudence. [Firstly, it] renders the sanction particularly onerous and reinforces the argument that it was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, which apart from constituting an abuse of discretionary power, violates Article 12 § 3 of the Constitution, which states that a penalty shall not be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Secondly, it denies the applicant's right of property by which he is entitled to a pension for which he was has contributed part of his salary. The new Law no. 1/90 contains a revised section 79, which represents a somewhat incomplete regulation of this issue. Namely, when a public servant is dismissed, a pension is paid to his dependants as though he had died. This is unpleasant, but represents a solution that was found and agreed upon at the time.
...”
Judgment was reserved. 19.  In the meantime, one of the members of the bench hearing the case was appointed Minister of Defence, and the Supreme Court decided to reopen the proceedings. The appeal was heard for a second time on 9 July 1999. The verbatim record of the hearing reads as follows:
“Mr Efstathiou: Your Honours, the facts of this case are, in simple terms, as follows:
...
I will deal with grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal and grounds 5 and 3 emanating from them. I will deal with all of them ...
Ms Koursoumba: In the previous court session, grounds 1, 2 and 5 were withdrawn.
Mr Efstathiou: Indeed, as I have said.
...
Judge Konstantinidis: For the sake of order, I see in the transcript of the previous hearing that you have withdrawn all the grounds of appeal, apart from 3 and 4.
Mr Efstathiou: Indeed.
...
In closing, we conclude that the appellant's twenty and more years of service have brought about pension rights – independent rights that are based on a legal structure which is independent and autonomous compared to other legislative regulations. Everyone contributes to the creation of the capital of the pension; the government also contributes; it is part of the employee's emolument. This sanction ... according to section 79(7) [entails the loss of all retirement benefits].
Therefore, the imposition of the sanction of dismissal, the direct consequence of which is the forfeiture of pension rights, has legal consequences that violate constitutional principles, essential rights and the case-law. The sanction is therefore particularly onerous.
Judge Konstantinidis: You also clarified it last time, but we must bring up the subject once more. We must realise that there is no issue of constitutionality of the law itself but that the subject is being discussed within the framework of the position you are advocating, that it was not reasonably permissible to impose such a sanction.
Mr Efstathiou: Because this is also a consequence of that. It is so. The imposition of the sanction exceeded the limits of the exercise of discretionary power and violated the constitutional principle of Article 12 § 3 that the penalty should not be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Thus, the principles of law, the principles of proportionality, the principles of not exceeding the extreme limits of discretionary power and of respect for the appellant's vested rights have been violated. I have told you all this before.” 20.  Judgment was delivered on 20 July 1999, dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court held as follows:
“...
The first-instance court held that the sanction of dismissal imposed on the appellant by the Public Service Commission was just and lawful and within the bounds of its discretion. Also, it stated that the commission had considered the various mitigating circumstances in favour of the applicant before it reached a decision, and that its discretionary power did not concern the issue of the appellant's pension, but only the matter of the sanction. The forfeiture of the appellant's entitlements following discharge was, under the same Law, a consequence of the sanction imposed on him.
In the end, the appeal was limited to two grounds, which are stated in the amended notice of appeal and which are the following:
'(1)  The court's finding that the sanction imposed on the appellant by the Public Service Commission was not excessively onerous and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and/or that the Public Service Commission did take the mitigating circumstances into account in their consideration of the sanction and/or that it did not exercise its discretionary power in breach of procedure in determining the sanction is erroneous.
(2)  The court's finding that the sanction of dismissal imposed on the appellant by the Public Service Commission was just and lawful and within the limits of its discretionary power is erroneous.'
The position of the appellant's lawyer is that the principles of law relevant to criminal proceedings are implemented analogously in disciplinary proceedings. Whilst the commission accepted the existence of mitigating circumstances in the case under examination, such as the appellant's long service in the Cypriot struggle for liberation and the Co-operative Movement, and the fact that there was no material gain for him personally, it nevertheless imposed the heaviest sanction on him, rather than a sanction of, for example, compulsory retirement, which would also have resulted in his removal from service. The appellant stated that the sanction of dismissal was excessively onerous and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and claimed that the principle of proportionality had been infringed, and thus argued that the commission had exceeded the extreme limits of its margin of discretion. In clarifying this position, he stated that he did not request the Court to change the case-law and interfere with the sanction imposed, but to declare the decision null and void on the ground that it exceeded the extreme limits of the commission's margin of discretion.
The respondent's lawyer contended that the judgment of the first-instance court was just and challenged the claims of the appellant's lawyer by arguing that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to interfere in matters of sanction, unless the disciplinary body had clearly exceeded the extreme limits of its margin of discretion. She also stated that the assessment of the facts and the severity of the sanction were beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
We concur with the opening address of the respondent's lawyer. In fact, it has been established, under Article 146 of the Constitution, that the Administrative Court is not competent, amongst other things, to determine the severity of a disciplinary sanction.
...
The first-instance court, on examining the issue of the discretionary power of the commission, stated the following on page 9 of its judgment:
'Having carefully examined the case file, as well as the relevant verbatim record, where the ratio decidendi and the statement of reasons are included in detail, I judge that the Public Service Commission imposed the sanction of dismissal on the applicant justly and lawfully, without exceeding the limits of its discretionary power. The Public Service Commission, as it is explicitly reported in the relevant transcript (see Appendix 8 of the Plea) took into account the applicant's various mitigating circumstances before reaching a decision. The Public Service Commission's discretionary power was not related to pension issues, but only to the matter of the sanction. The sanction imposed on the applicant entailed, according to the same Law, the forfeiture of all his entitlements upon discharge.'
This conclusion of the first-instance court is correct. The commission chose to impose the severest sanction. This decision was within its jurisdiction. It has not been demonstrated that the commission did not act within the extreme limits of its margin of discretion, either due to the fact that it acted irrationally or due to the fact that it acted in breach of the principles of good administration, the latter including the principle of proportionality, on which the appellant's lawyer has essentially based his case.
The fact that the Public Service Commission imposed the severest sanction provided for by the relevant law even though it had established the existence of mitigating circumstances does not demonstrate that it did not act within the extreme limits of its margin of discretion. Evidently, as shown by its decision, it deemed that, despite the existence of mitigating circumstances, the seriousness and the effects of the offence were such that it was justified in imposing the severest sanction provided for by law. This follows from the commission's decision, in which, while highlighting the seriousness of the offences, it also referred to parts of the decision of the criminal court. Below is a quote from the Public Service Commission's decision:
'The Commission has no other choice but to consider the offences, on the grounds of which the public servant in question was sentenced to prison, as being of the gravest nature. As the judge who tried the case aptly said:
 “The one and only aim of his actions was to promote himself as a person who could easily solve all of the problems on the island due to the financial strength of the Co-operative Movement, which he claimed to have founded himself. I should, at this point, underline the fact that he was managing the resources of the Mutual Fund as though they were his private property. However, he had no right to use the Fund's resources for purposes other than those for which the Co-operative Institutions had entrusted him with significant sums of money.
 His bad faith is also evident, amongst other things, in the fact that he took great care to conceal the source of the funds whenever he made payments for purposes other than those for which he had been entrusted with the money. He viewed the Fund an inexhaustible source of resources that allowed him to be popular with those in positions of power as well as his friends.
 The fact that large sums of money were given away to charities does not exonerate the defendant from responsibility for his actions. Philanthropic acts using funds provided by others do not constitute charity at all, but are merely acts of exploitation and self-promotion.” '
Following this and prior to reaching a decision on the sanction to be imposed, the commission also stated the following:
'A high-ranking official who shows such disregard for his responsibilities and duties as in the present case and who, additionally, so openly violates the law and/or the regulations of service in order to promote himself as a benefactor of society places himself out of the public service.'
For all the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed with all expenses to be paid by the appellant.”