LANITIS ν. REPUBLIC
(1988)3 CLR 87 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων
(1988)3 CLR 87 1988 January 27 [KOURRIS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION CHRISTAKIS LANITIS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS, Respondent. (Case No. 760/85). Motor Vehicles-Conversion of, into another type of vehicle-Respondent rightly demanded additional import duty, i.e. the duty appropriate for type of vehicle into which the vehicle was converted-The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations 1984 (66/84), Reg. 55
(1). The applicant opened glass windows on the body of his van and made additions in the inside of the van which were necessary so that the van could be used as what is commonly known as "caravan" including the fixing of a seat. As a result the van became heavier and it was also converted into a different type of vehicle. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the respondent claimed additional import duty, appropriate for the type of vehicle into which the van was converted. Hence this recourse:
(1)The sub judice decision is within the ambit of Reg. 55
(1).
(2)Applicant's complaint for discrimination in that in similar cases the Registrar did not claim additional import duty cannot, in any event, succeed, because refusal by the administration to repeat an unlawful act does not amount to discrimination. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: loannides v. Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 117. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to claim additional import duty on the conversion of applicant's motor van into the type of vehicles commonly known as "Caravan" A. Georghiou, for the applicant. G. Erotokritou (Mrs), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur.adv. vult. KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. Applicant by the present recourse challenges the decision of the Registrar of the Motor Vehicles dated 4th July, 1985, whereby he approved the convention of his motor van into the type of vehicle, commonly known as "Caravan" on condition of payment of additional import duty. Applicant is the owner of a motor van registration No. DE 187 and on 10th May, .1985, submitted an application to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to convert his van into a "Canteen" and on 1st July, 1985, he submitted an application for the conversion of his motor van into a self-propelled "Caravan". When the appropriate authority examined the vehicle in question, it found out that applicant opened glass windows on the body of the van and made additions in the inside of the van which were necessary so that the van could be used as what is commonly known as "Caravan", including the fixing of a seat. As a result of these alterations, the said van became heavier and it was also converted into a different type of vehicle and the Registrar claimed additional import duty which is appropriate for the type of vehicle into which the said van was converted. Hence the present recourse. Counsel for the applicant contended that the said decision is illegal because there is no legislative provision governing the conversion of a commercial van into a "Caravan". The decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles was based on Regulation 55
(1)of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations 1984 (K.?.II) 66/84, which reads as follows:- "55.--
(1)Απαγορεύεται η αλλαγή, μετατροπή ή προσαρμογή της μηχανής ή του συστήματος οδηγήσεως ή πεδήσεως ή του κορμού κινητήρος ή του πλαισίου ή του αμαξώματος εγγεγραμμένου μηχανοκίνητου οχήματος ή οιαδήποτε αλλαγή, μετατροπή ή προσαρμογή επηρεάζουσα τας διαστάσεις ή το βάρος τοιούτου οχήματος, ή οιαδήποτε αλλαγή, προσαρμογή ή μετατροπή, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της προσθήκης καθίσματος ή υαλοπινάκων εις τας πλευράς του οχήματος, ως εκ της οποίας μετατρέπεται το όχημα εις άλλον τύπον ή κατηγορίαν του οχήματος, εκτός εάν τηρουμένων των διατάξεων του Κανονισμού 76 και υπό την επιφύλαξιν ότι θα καταβληθούν οι αναλογούντες εις τον νέον τύπον ή κατηγορίαν οχήματος δασμοί και φόροι δυνάμει των εκάστοτε εν ισχύ περί Τελωνειακών Δασμών και Φόρων Καταναλώσεως Νόμων, ο Έφορος, παράσχη επί τούτω άδειαν και τηρηθώσιν οι εκάστοτε υπ' αυτού επιβαλλόμενοι όροι. Εάν επενεχθή αλλαγή, προσαρμογή ή μετατροπή κατά παράβασιν όρου τεθέντος εις την παρασχεθείσαν υπό του Εφόρου άδειαν, η εγγραφή του οχήματος ακυρούται, προσέτι δε η άδεια κυκλοφορίας του οχήματος καθίσταται άκυρος και επιστρέφεται εις τον Έφορον ομού μετά του πιστοποιητικού καταλληλότητος του οχήματος". It appears from the wording of the Regulation that the word "Caravan" is not mentioned; but, what is material is not whether the word "Caravan" is mentioned in the Regulation but, whether the applicant made such alterations to his van so as to convert it into a different type of vehicle. In the present case the applicant made such alterations in the body of his van, i.e. opening glass windows, fixing a seat and also fixing other materials in the body of the van which made it heavier so that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles rightly reached the sub judice decision. Another point raised by counsel for the applicant is that the Registrar of the Motor Vehicles discriminated against the applicant contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution in that in similar cases the Registrar did not claim additional import duty. But, even assuming that the allegation of counsel for the applicant was correct and that the respondent had in fact allowed conversion of motor vans into "Caravans" in contravention Of the Regulations, such action could not amount to discrimination against the applicant because it is now well settled that the principle of equality and, therefore, refusal by the administration to repeat an unlawful act does not amount to discrimination. (See, inter alia, Andreas loannides v. Republic,
(1973)3 C.L.R. 117 and see also Conclusions from the Case Law of the Greek Council of State (1929-1959) p. 182. In the light of the foregoing, I find no merit in this recourse and accordingly I dismiss it. Very reluctantly I have decided to make no order as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο