clr/1982/1982_3_535.pdf

(1982)to grant thelicence appliedfor,asitwastheinvariable practice of the Ministry not to gobehind the decision of the Ministry of Interior in matters of this nature and as the Ministry of Interior hadobjected onsecurity reasons, theyhadturned down the application. In the Police file relating to this case there 5 were twoletters addressed to theChief of Police bythe Officer in Charge of the Central Information Service, to the effect, inter alia, that theManaging Director oftheapplicant Company was against thegovernment, that hewasarrested bythePolice a fewdays before theCoupandthat onthe 16thand 17thJuly, 10 1974, he was seen carrying arms. The allegations contained in the two letters were never communicated to the applicants nor were they put forward to the Managing Director when he wasbeingcross-examined sothat hewouldbegiventheopportunity to admit or deny them. The Managing Director in his 15 evidence emphatically stated that he was never convicted by any Court of Lawfor any kind of offence and that allhis codirectors were very respectable people. Held,that as the respondents did not explain how the radiotelephones required bythe apphcants canbe used in an illegal 20 way and the allegations contained in the twoletters as regards the character of the Managing Director are not substantiated or supported bytheevidence, andthey areuncertain andvague the decision of the Ministry of Communications and Works to refuse the application of the applicants must be annulled. 25 Sub judice decision annulled. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to grant applicants a licence to operate V.H.F. radio telephones for the purpose of enabling them to communicate with vessels 30 lying within the port area of Limassol. P. Soteriou, for the applicants. A. Vladimirou, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ. read thefollowingjudgment. The applicants, 35 who are a limited company registered in Cyprus in accordance with therelevantLawsandwhocarry onthebusinessof shipping agents, by their present recourse pray for a declaration that the act and/or the decision of the respondents, which was communicated to them on or about the 29th March, 1980, 40 536 3 C.L.R. Moustakas Shipping v. Republic Demetriades J. is null and void, illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect. They further pray for a declaration that they are entitled to a licence to possess V.H.F. radio telephones. The facts of the case are: On the 6th November, 1979, 5 the applicants applied to the Ministry of Communications and Works for the issue to them of a licence to operate V.H.F. radio telephones for the purpose ot enabling them to communicate with vessels lying within the port area of Limassol. On the 22nd March, 1980, the General Director of the Ministry 10 replied to flie applicants' application and informed them that they were unable to approve it for security reasons. The objection to grant to the applicants the licence applied for was raised bythe Ministry of Interior. The applicants called three witnesses in support of their application. They are, 15 Mr. Rogiros Michaelides, the Head of the Telecommunications Section of the Ministry of Communications and Works, the Assistant Chief of Police, Mr. Phanis Demetriou, who is in charge of the Operational Part of the Cyprus Police Force, and their Managing Director, Mr. Michalakis Moustakas. 20 Mr. Michaelides told the Court that the Ministry would have no objection to grant the licence applied for, but as it was the invariable practice of the Ministry not to go behind the decision of the Ministry of Interior in matters of this nature and as the Ministry of Interior had objected on security reasons, they 25 had turned down the application. He further said that though licences of this nature had on several occasions been refused either for security reasons, or because the nature of the party's application was not such as to justify the issue of such licence, the Ministry of Communications and Works would grant the 30 licence, because the applicant? fulfilled all the conditions and requirements inview of the nature of their business, i.e. shipping agents. Mr. Michaelides produced a list of twelve shipping agents of Limassol to whom licence to operate wireless telephones was granted. Mr. Phanis Demetriou was called in 35 order to produce the Police file relating to the present case. Though counsel for the respondents objected to the production of this file on the ground that it contains strictly confidential documents concerning the person of the Managing Director of the applicants, it was made available to the Court for inspe40 ction. & 537 Demetriades J. Moustakas Shipping v. Republic

(1982)I have had the opportunity to go through this file and I can trace no other information or documents except two letters addressed to the Chief of Police by the officer in charge of the Central information Service, to the effect that Mr. Michalakis Moustakas, the Managing Director of the applicant Company, 5 is " Εθνικόφρονας, αντικυβερνητικοί, διετέλεσε μέλος της ΕΟΚΑ Β, καΐ παρέμεινε αμετανόητος", as well as that he was against the government, that he was arrested by the Police a few days before the coup and that on the 16th and 17th July, 1974, he was seen carrying arms, that he appeared 10 to be a person of authority and that he took part in interrogating policemen and law-abiding citizens who had been arrested and kept at the Limassol Police Station Itis further stated in these letters that Mr. Moustakas, after the restoration of the consti­ tutional order in Cyprus continued to have the same ideas and 15 to support the coup. Mr. Moustakas, who gave evidence, said that the Board of Directors of the applicant Company consists of himself, his wife, Mr. P. Soteriou, the counsel appearing to-day for the applicants, and Mr. Fronis Saveriades, an advocate of Limassol 20 He said that lie has been in the shipping business for approxi­ mately 27 years and that until he formed his own company he was employed by Messrs S. Ch. Feropoulos Co Ltd as their Manager. The witness said that in order to operate their business the applicants must possess and use the equipment 25 applied for, because without it they cannot do their work properly, winch becomes problematic, that they cannot compete with other shipping companies, because the cost of loading and unloading cargo that is entrusted to them becomes prohi­ bitive. Further, by not communicating by means of radio- 30 telephone with the Master and the crew of ships on which they cither load or unload cargo they have to use a motor-launch which is very costly and it takes considerable time. The allegations contained in the two letters that I have earlier mentioned, were never commumcated to the applicants nor were they put forward to Mr Moustakas when he was being cross-examined so that he would be given the opportunity to admit or deny them. Mr. Moustakas 111his evidence empha­ tically stated that he was never convicted by any Court of Law 0 538 35 3 C.L.R. Moustakas Shipping v. Republic Demetriades J. for any kind of offence and that all his co-directors are very respectable people. As the respondents did not explain how the radio-telephones required by the applicants can be used in an illegal way and 5 the allegations contained in the two letters as regards the character of Mr. Moustakas are not substantiated or supported by the evidence, and they are uncertain and vague, I find that the decision of the Ministry of Communications and Works to refuse the application of the applicants must be annulled. 10 In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Sub judice decision annulled. No order as to costs. 539