ARTICLE 146
THE CONSTITUTION IOANNIS IOANNtDES V. THE NICOSIA MUNICIPALITY IOANNIS IOANNIDES, Applicant, and THE NICOSIA MUNICIPALITY, Respondent. • (Case No. 16/68;. Building—Building permit—Fence—Refusal
building permit in respect
afence—Plans for thefence not in accordance with alignment under a street-widening scheme, published on the 29/A June, 1950,andinforce eversince—Fenceisa "Building" inthe senseofsection 2of the Streets andBuildingsRegulation Law Cap. 96, and therefore, it requires a permit under the provisions
sections 3 and 4
the said Law—Permit, as appliedfor, could not be granted in view
the provisions
section 12
the same Law. Administrative decisions—Due reasoning—Refusal
building permit—No reasons given to Applicant for such refusal— Nevertheless,decisionhastoberegardedasbeingdulyreasoned, in the light
the contents
the relevant records produced in Court. Reasoning—Due reasoning
administrative decisions required— See above. Constitutional Law—Article- 29
the Constitution—Failure
the Respondents to reply to a written request by Applicant for reasons to be given why they have refused the building permit appliedfor—As the Applicant has come to Court, by this recourse, regarding the substance
the refusal
the said building permit—And as he has not established that he has suffered any material detriment through a breach, if any,
—He does not continue to have any longer an "existing legitimate interest" in this respect within Article 146.2
the Constitution—And. thus, the Applicant cannot claim in this recourse a decision in his favour for failure
the Respondent Municipality to comply with Article
the Constitution the Applicant complains in effect, against a decision
the Respondent Municipality, communicated to him by a letter dated the 9th November, 1967, not to issue to him a building permit in respect
a fence which the Applicant intended to build around part
his property. No reasons were given in the said letter
the 9th November for such refusal. It is, also, a fact that the Municipality failed to reply to a letter
the 5th December, 1967, whereby counsel for the Applicant was requesting to be informed
the reasons why the Municipality refused the permit applied for by Applicant. Article 29
the Constitution reads as follows: 1. "Every person has the right individually or jointly with other to address written requests or complaints to any competent public authority and to have them attended to and decided expeditiously; an immediate notice
any such decision taken duly reasoned shall be given to the person making the request or complaint and in any event within a period not exceeding thirty days. 2. Where any interested person is aggrieved by any such decision or where no such decision is notified to such person within the period specified in paragraph 1
this Article, such person may have recourse to a competent court in the matter
such request or complaint." Dismissing the recourse the Court :Held,
the Respondents' refusal to issue to him the building permit, and ashe has not established that he has suffered any material detriment through a 552 breach, if any,
the Constitution (supra), he does not continue to have any longer any "existing legiti mate interest" in this respect within Article 146.2
the constitution, and thus, he cannot claim in this recourse a decision in his favour for failure
the Respondents to comply with the provisions
the 9th
November 1967, for their refusal to issue the building permit, nevertheless the decision itself to refuse such permit has, in my view, to be regarded as duly reasoned in the light
the contents
the relevant records which have been produced. (b) And it is clear from such records that the refusal to issue the permit was due to the fact that the plans for the fence to be built were not in accordance with the align ment in force, under a street-widening scheme duly published on the 29th June, 1950.
the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 and, therefore, it requires a permit under sections 3 and 4
the said Law. But such permit, as applied for, could not be issued in view
the aforesaid alignment (see section 12
the same Law). I have, thus, no hesitation in dismissing the recourse. There will be no order as to costs. Applicationdismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: Kyriakides and The Republic ι R.S.C.C. 66, at p. 77; Thymopoulos and The Municipal Committee
Nicosia
the Respondents refusing to issue Applicant a building permit in respect
a fence, which he intended to build around part
his property. P. Michaelides, for the Applicant. K. Michaelides, for the Respondents. CUT. adv. vult. 553 1968 Sept. 14 IOANNIS lOANNIDES V. THE NICOSIA MUNICIPALITY 1968 Sept. 14 lOANMS lOANNIDES V. T H E NICOSIA MUNICIPALITY The following Judgment was delivered by: TRIANTAFYLLIDBS,J.: InthiscasetheApplicant complains, in effect, against a decision
the Respondent Nicosia Municipality not to issue to him a building permit, in respect
a fence, which he intends to build around part
his property, shown as plot 42 on a survey map attached to the Applicant's application for the building permit, which he made on the 13th December, 1966 (see exhibit 2). His application, having been rejected by the Respondent, the Applicant was informed accordingly by a letter dated the 9th November, 1967 (see exhibit 3). On the5th December, 1967,counselactingforthe Applicant wrote to the Respondent asking for the reasons on the basis
which the Applicant's application had been rejected (see exhibit 3A). No reply at all was given to this letter. There is no doubt that in the Respondent's letter,
the 9th November, 1967, communicating the rejection
the Applicant's application for a building permit (exhibit 3), no reasons were given for such a course. It is, also, a fact that the Respondent failed to reply to the aforesaid letter
the 5th December, 1967, (exhibit 3A) requesting such reasons. But, as the Applicant has,by this recourse, come to Court regarding the substance
the matter
the refusal
the building permit, andhehasnotestablished that hehas suffered any material detriment through a breach—assuming there isone—
fthe Constitution, hedoes notcontinue to have any longer any "existing legitimate interest" in this respect, and, thus, he cannot claim in this recourse a decision in his favour for failure
the Respondent to comply with Article 29(see Kyriakides and The Republic, 1 R.S.C.C, 66, at p. 77). The decision, itself,
the Respondent, to refuse the application
Applicant for a building permit, has, in my view, to be regarded as being duly reasoned, in the light
the contents
the relevant thereto records, which have been produced (see exhibit 5); it is to be derived, clearly, from such records that the refusal to issue the permit was due tothefact that theplansfcr thefence tobebuilt bytheAppli554 cant were not in accordance with the new alignment, under a street-widening scheme which was published on the 29th June, 1950, and has been in force ever since. Actually, the Applicant, himself, knew very well
this impediment to the issue
a permit, as applied for by him, because a previous application
his, in the same matter, had been dealt with likewise by the Respondent Municipality, in 1960 (see exhibit 4). The fence that the Applicant seeks to be permitted to build is, no doubt, a "building" in the sense
section 2
the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law (Cap. 96) and, therefore, it requires a permit as provided for under sections 3 and 4
the Law; in view
the provisions
section 12
thesame Law, apermit, asapplied for, could notbe granted by the Respondent to the Applicant. I have, thus, no hesitation in dismissing this recourse; but 1 do leave open—as I have left it open in the case
Thymopoulosand The Municipal Committee
Nicosia
the effect
the application
the provisions
section 13
Cap. 96, in case the Applicant were to build on the new alignment, instead
on the old one as he has now sought to do. In view
the most unfortunate failure
the Respondent to reply to the letter exhibit 3A, I have decided to make no order as to costs in this recourse. Application dismissed. No orderfor costs. 555 1968 Sept. 14 IOANNIS lOANNIDES V.. THE NICOSIA MUNICIPALITY
AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.