clr/1973/1973_3_53.pdf

[TiUANTAFYLLlDES, Ρ-ϊ IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION ANNA GEORGHIOU AND ANOTHER, 1973 Jan. 27 —* ANNA GEOROHIOU AND ΑΝΟΤΗΕΛ V Applicants, MUNICIPALITY· OF NICOSIA and THE MUNICIPALITY OF NICOSIA, Respondent. (Case No. 151/70). Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 (Law 15 of 1962)—Not unconstitutionalas being contrary to Article 23.4 of the Constitution, Administrative Law—Discretionary powers—Administrative decision on a matter of technical nature—Extent of widening a street—Principle on which anadministrative Court can go into the merits of such a decision. Compulsory Acquisition—Compensation—Neednot be offered simultaneouslywith the making of the order of com­ pulsory acquisition—Section 8 of the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 (Law No. 15 of 1962) and Article 23.4(

1. c)of the Constitution. Equality—Principleof equality—Article 28.1 of the Con­ stitution—Equality of treatment is requiredthereunder in cases where no reasonabledifferentiation can be justi­ fied objectively—Compulsoryacquisition of property— Justification therefor existing in view of the particular location of Applicants'properties. Constitutional Law—Article 23.4(
2. a)of the Constitution— Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 (Law15 of 1962) not unconstitutional in relation to the said Article. The applicants in this recourse complain against an order of compulsory acquisition affecting property of theirs in Nicosia. The sub judice order of compulsory acquisition was made 53 1973 Jan 27 under the provisions of the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 (Law 15 of 1962). ANNA GEORGHIOU AND ANOTHER Counsel for the applicants raised the following points; V MUNICIPALITY OF NICOSIA (
3. a)That the said law 15 of 1962 is contrary to Article 23.4 of the Constitution, which provides that a general law for compulsory acquisition should be enacted within a year from the coming into operation of the Constitution. This is so because Law 15/62 was enacted on the 1st March, 1962, i.e. after more than a year's period had elapsed since the coming into operation of the Constitution on the 16th August, 1960. (
4. b)That until the date of the hearing of this case no offer of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition had been made to the applicants. (
5. c)That the compulsory acquisition of the properties of the applicants was not, as made, reasonably necessary for the purposes of the widening of the avenue concerned. Counsel for applicants argued in this respect that the acquisition went beyond what is envisaged by the street-widening scheme currently in force in relation to this avenue and that, therefore, the respondent has acted in excess or abuse of powers. (
6. d)That applicants are the victims of unequal treatment in view of the fact that they have been deprived, by compulsory acquisition, of their properties without the same course being adopted, at least to the same extent, in relation to other neighbouring properties. Held, (I) with regard to point (a): As held in Aspri and The Republic, 4 R.S.C.C. 57 at p. 60, Article 23.4(
7. a)is a provision in the nature of a direction to the Legislature and it does not preclude compliance therewith after the expiry of the period of time prescribed therein. Held, (II) with regardto point (b): I can find nothing in either Article 23.4, or in Law 15/62, which could leaa me to a decision annulling the order of compulsory acquisition on such a ground. Actually from Article 23.4(
8. c)it can be fairly derived, by reasonable implication, that the compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition need not be offered 54 simultaneously with the making of the relevant order of compulsory acquisition; and s. 8 of Law 15/62 clearly envisages that the offer of compensation may be made subsequently to the publication of the acquisition order. 1973 Jan. 27 ANNA GEORGHIOU AND ANOTHER Held, (III) with regard to point (c): V. 1. This Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as an administrative Court, cannot go into the merits of an administrative decision regarding a matter of a technical nature such as the extent of the widening of a street, or of any particular part thereof, so long as such decision has been reached in the course of the exercise, within the proper limits, of the relevant discretionary powers of the competent administrative organ (Eraclidou and Another v. Compensation Officer, Ministry of Labour & Social Insurance