(1984)1982 February 24 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THEMATTER. OFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION SALAM1S FLOUR MILLS LTD..AND OTHERS, Applicants. v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
- THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS,
- THE GRAIN COMMISSION. Respondents. I (Case No. 20/70). Grain Control Law. Cap. 68 {as amended)—Common flour—Decision of Council of Ministers fixing maximum sale price of, on the recommendation of Grain Commission—Section 5
(1)of theLaw —Grain Commission not seeking the advice of the Advisory Committee, set up under sAA of the Law, before making its 5 recommendations—Due compliance with the administrative proce dural requirements laid down by sAA an essentialformality for the purpose of reaching validly the sub judice decision—Failure to conform with provisions of sAA contrary to Law andentails the invalidityof the recommendationto the Council of Ministers— 10 And since such recommendationanobviously most material factor on which the subjudice decision of the Council of Ministers was based its decision treated as being contrary to law and invalid too. Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Composite administrative action—Invalidity of part of a composite admini strative action leads to the invalidity of the action as a whole. 15 Administrative Law—Administrative procedural requirements laid down by the relevant statute—In this case the Grain Control Law, Cap. 68—Λπ essential formality for the purpose of reaching 20 validly a decision thereunder. The applicants in this recourse sought the annulment of an 132 3 C.I..R. Salamis Flour Mills v. Republic Order* which was made by the Council of Ministers by means of which the maximum sale price of common flour was fixed at 51 mils per oke. They, also, sought the annulment of the decision of the respondent Grain Commission to recommend to the Council of Ministers the fixing of the said price. Γη making its sub judice recommendationthe GrainCommission did not rely or otherwise take into account any ad\ice given in this respect by the Advisory Committee which was set up under section 4A** of Cap. 68; and no advice about the price of flour was sought from, or given by, such Committee. 5 10 Counsel for the applicants mainly contended that the admi nistrative process prescribed by subsections
(2)and
(4)of section 4A of Cap. 68 was not duly implemented in that the Commission had not sought the advice of theAdvisory Board set up under s.4A, before making its recommendation and therefore, the sub judice decision is invalid. 15 Held,that the provision in section 4A about consulting the Advisory Committee is mandatory (see, also, subsection
(4)of section 4A); that, therefore, due compliance with the administrative procedural requirements laid down by the provisions of section 4A was an essential formality for the purpose of reach ing validly the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers; accordingly the failure on this occasion,of the GrainCommission to conform to the said section 4A is contrary to law and entails the invalidity of its recommendation to the Council of Ministers regarding the maximum price of flour; and, as such recom mendation was, by virtue of section 5(l)(g) of Cap. 68, an obviously most material factor on which the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers was based its decision has to be treated as being contrary to law also and, consequently, invalid, too. 20 25 30 Held,further, that the recommendation of theGrain Commis sion forms together with the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers a composite administrative action and the invalidity * The Order was made under section 5
(1)of the Grain Control Law, Cap.68 (as amended) which is quoted at p. 135 post. ** Section4Ais quoted at pp. 136-137 post. Section 4A
(2)provides that "the Commission shall seek theAdvisory Committee's advice on any matter within itscompetence andlikely to affect materially any of the interests represented onthe Advisory Committee,andmayconsult with it on any matter within its competence". 133 Salamis Flour Mills v. Republic
(1984)of such recommendation necessarily entails the invalidity of the said decision. Sub judice decision annulled. Cases referred to: Michaeloudes v. Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R. 56at p.72; Papaleontiou v. Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 54 at p. 62: Eraclidouv. Compensation Officer
(1968)3 C.L.R. 44 at p.
- Recourse. Recourse against the decision ofthe respondents whereby the maximum sale price of common flour wasfixed at 51mils per oke. G. Cacoyiannis, for the applicants.
- Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vu/f. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read thefollowing judgment. Bymeans of thepresent recourse theapplicants seek the annulment ofan Order made on 30th October 1969bytherespondent Council of Ministers under section 5
(1)of the Grain Control Law,Cap. 68 - as amended, in particular, by the Grain Control (Amendment) Law, 1966 (Law 83/66) - and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic on 7th November 1969(sec No.885 in the Third Supplement to the Gazette). By such Order the maximum sale price of common flour wasfixed at 51 mils per oke. The applicants seek, also, the annulment of the decision of the respondent Grain Commission to recommend totheCouncil of Ministers the fixing of the said price. Flour wasdeclared to be a "controlled article" by an Order made on 30th March 1961 by the Council of Ministers under section 3of Cap. 68and published in theOfficial Gazette ofthe Republic on 31st March 1961(seeNo.93in theThird Supplement to the Gazette). The Grain Commission wassetup under section 4ofCap.68, as amended, in partidular, by Law 83/66, and its functions are set out in section 5
(1)of Cap. 68. Oneof such functions (see paragraph (g)ofthe said section 5
(1)) was initially tofix,withthe 134 3 C.L.R. 5 Salamis Flour Mills >. Republic TriantafyHides P. approval of the Government, the maximum price at which a controlled article should be sold, but after section 5
(1)of Cap.68 was amended, in this respect, by means of section 4(l)(b) of Law 83/66, the role of the Grain Commission was limited to making a recommendationto the Council of Ministers regarding the fixing of the said maximum price. The relevant part of section 4
(1)(b) of Law 83/66 reads as follows: 10 "4. To άρθρον 5 τοϋ βασικού Νόμου τροποποιείται ώς ακολούθως:
(1)ΕΙς το εδάφιον
(1)αύτοΰ— (β) ή παράγραφος (ζ) αντικαθίσταται διά της κάτωθι: 15 20 '(στ)νά συνιστά εϊς το Ύπουργικόν Συμβουλίου τήν άνωτάτην τιμήν ή κλίμακα τιμών είς τάς οποίας το έλεγχόμενον εΐδος θα άγοράζηται ή θά πωλήται όπερ κατόπιν μελέτης της γενομένης συστάσεως προβαίνει είς τόν καθορισμού της τοιαύτης τιμής ή κλίμακος τιμών διά διατάγματος αύτοΰ δημο σιευομένου είς την έπίσημον εφημερίδα της Δημοκρατίας'. ("4. Section 5 of the principal Law is hereby amended as follows:(I) In sub-section
(1)thereof— 25 30 (
- b)The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (
- g)thereof:'(
- g)to recommend to the Council of Ministers the maximum price or scale of prices at which the controlled article shall be purchased or sold, theCouncilof Ministers proceeding,after consideration of the recommendation made, to the fixing of such price or scale of prices by Order published in the official Gazette of the Republic;' • • Also, by virtue of section 4A, which was introduced into 135 " ) · Triantafyllides P. Salamis Flour Milts >. Republic
(1984)Cap. 68 by section 3 of Law 83/66, there was made provision for the creation of an Adv-sory Committee as follows: "4A.-
(1)Έ π ιτη έκδόσει Διατάγματος Έλεγχου καθιδρύεται Συμβουλευτική Επιτροπή συνισταμένη έκ τοΰ Διευθυντού της Επιτροπής Σιτηρών ώςΠροέδρου, δύο προσώπων ικανών όπως έκπροσωπώσι τα συμφέροντα τοΰ Συνεργατισμού, τεσσάρων προσώπων ικανών όπως έκπροσωπώσι τα συμ φέροντα τών σιτοπαραγωγών και τεσσάρων προσώπων ικανών όπως έκπροσωπώσι τά συμφέροντα τών άλευροβιομηχάνων, τών αρτοποιών, τών καταναλωτών άρτου και τών καταναλωτών κτηνοτροφικών προϊόντων αντιστοί χως, απάντων διοριζομένων ΰπό τού Υπουργικού Συμβου λίου. Ή περίοδος θητείας τών μελών θά είναι τριετής έκτος έάν ή διορίζουσα αρχή άνακαλέση τόν διορισμόν καθ* οίονδήποτέ χρόνον π ρ ό της λήξεως της θητείας. 5 10 15
(2)Ή Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή επιζητεί συμβουλήν παρά της Συμβου λευτικής Επιτροπής έπι παντός ζητήματος εμπίπτοντος εντός της αρμοδιότητος αυτής και ενδεχομένως ουσιωδώς έπηρεάζοντος οιονδήποτε τών έν τη Συμβουλευτική Έ π ι - 20 τροπή εκπροσωπουμένων συμφερόντων και δύναται νά συσκευθη μετ' αυτής έπ! παντός ζητήματος εμπίπτοντος εντός της αρμοδιότητος αυτής.
(3)Ή Συμβουλευτική Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή δύναται έξ ιδίας πρωτο βουλίας νά προβή είς παραστάσεις προς τήν 'Επιτροπήν 25 έπ! παντός ζητήματος το όποιον εγείρεται ή ενδεχομένως δύναται νά έγερθή κατά τήν άσκησ>ν τών λειτουργιών τ η . Επιτροπής όπερ ή Συμβουλευτική 'Επιτροπή θεωρεί ότι ενδεχομένως ουσιωδώς επηρεάζει οίονδήποτε τών έν τή Συμβουλευτική Επιτροπή εκπροσωπουμένων συμφερόντων. 30
(4)Ή Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή λαμβάνει ύ π ' όψιν οιανδήποτε συμβουλήν παρεχομένην είς αυτήν δυνάμει τού εδαφίου
(2)ύπό τής Συμβουλευτικής Επιτροπής και οιασδήποτε παραστάσεις γενομένας ύ π ' αυτής δυνάμει τοΰ εδαφίου
(3), και είς περί πτωσιν μή αποδοχής τούτων έν όλω ή έν μέρει, είδοποιεΐ 35 εγγράφως περί τούτου τήν Συμβουλευτικήν Έπιτροπήν συναποστέλλουσα άντίγραφον της τοιαύτης ειδοποιήσεως προς τό Ύπουργικόν Συμβούλιον τό όποιον επιλαμβάνεται και λύει οιανδήποτε ΰφισταμένην διχογνωμίαν". 136 3 C.L.R 5 Salamis Flour Mills v. Republic TriantafjHides P. ("4A.-
(1)Upon the making of a Control Order there shall be established an Advisory Committee consisting of the Manager of the Grain Commission as Chairman, two persons capable of representing the interests of the Cooperative Movement, four persons capable of representing the interests of grain producers and four persons capable of representing the interests of millers, bakers, bread consumers and stock-farming products consumers, respectively, all appointed by the Council of Ministers. 10
(2)The Commission shall seek the Advisory Committee's advice on any matter within its competence and likely to affect materially any of the interests represented on the Advisory Committee, and may consult with it on any matter within its competence. 15
(3)The Advisory Committee may of its own motion make representations to the Commission on any matter arising or likely to arise in the exercise of the functions of the Commission, which the Advisory Committee considers as likely to affect materially any of the interests represented on the Advisory Committee. 20 25
(4)The Commission shall giveconsideration to any advice tendered to it by the Advisory Committee under subsection
(2)and to any representations made by it under sub-section
(3)and in the event of non-adoption thereof, in whole or in part, it shall notify in writing the Advisory Committee accordingly, sending at the same time a copy of such notification to the Council of Ministers which shall deal with and solve any existing dispute"). One of the main submissions of counsel for the applicants, 30 during the much protracted hearing of this case, has been that the administrative process prescribed by subsections
(2)and
(4)of section 4A of Cap. 68, as amended by Law 83/66, was not duly implemented and, therefore, the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers in invalid. 35 As there appears clearly from the minutes of a special meeting of the Grain Commission, which was held on the 27th October 1969 (see exhibit XIII), the Chairman of the Commission informed its members about the contacts that had taken place 137 riantafyllides P. Salamis Flour Mills v. Republic
(1984)letween the Government and the Association of Flourmiliers >n the matter of the price of flour and the Commission, after liscussing such matter, decided to recommend to the Council >f Ministers that the price of flour used for making ordinary >read must remain at 51 mils per oke. 5 In reaching its above decision the Commission did not rely >rotherwise take into account any advice given in this respect >ythe Advisory Committee which was set up under section 4A >f Cap. 68; and, actually, as there emerges from the minutes >fthe meeting of theAdvisory Committeeon the 18th September 10 969 (see exhibit XV) no advice about the price of flour was ought from, or given by, such Committee. It has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that the »rovision in section 4A about consulting the Advisory Comlittee is not mandatory but of a directive nature. 1 cannot, 15 owever, subscribe to this view: From the clear wording of ubscction
(2)of section 4A it can only be concluded that the rocedure provided therein is mandatory, especially in cases uch as the present one where the interests of parties particiating, under section 4A(I), in the Advisory Committee may 20 e materially affected. My above view is confirmed as correct by the provisions of ubsection
(4)of section 4A to the effect that in case the Grain Commission does not adopt the advice given to it by the Adviory Committee the Commission should notify, in this respect, ι writing, the Advisory Committee, sending, also, a copy of uch notification to the Council of Ministers, which has to deal >ith and solve the dispute. 25 Having reached, thus, the conclusion that due compliance 'ith the administrative procedural requirements laid down 30 y the provisions of section 4A, above, was an essential formality :>r the purpose of reaching validly the sub judice decision of ie Council of Ministers, I am of the opinion that the failure, η this occasion, of the Grain Commission to conform to the lid section 4A is contrary to law and entails the invalidity 35 f its recommendation to the Council of Ministers regarding ie maximum price of flour; and, as such recommendation was, yvirtue of section 5(l)(g) of Cap. 68,an obviously most material 138 3 C.L.R. Salamis Flour Mills *. Republic Triantafyllides P. factor on which the sub judice decision of the Council of Mini sters was based its decision has to be treated as being contrary to law also and, consequently, invalid, too. As regards the relevant principles of administrative law which seem to be applicable in the present instance useful reference may be made, inter alia, to Kyriakopoulos on Greek Admi nistrative Law, (Κυριακοπούλου, Έλληνικόν Διοικητικόν Δίκαιον), 4th ed., vol. Β, pp. 391-394, Manual of Administrative Law by Spiliotopoulos (Σπηλιωτοπούλου, Έγχειρίδιον Διοικητικού 10 Δικαίου),
(1977), pp.405-406, para. 443, and Conclusions from Casc-Law of the Council of State in Greece (Πορίσματα Νομολογίας τού Συμβουλίου της Επικρατείας), 1929-1959, pp. 266-267. 5 There should, also, be added that the aforementioned recom15 mendation of the Grain Commission forms together with th· sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers a compositi administrative action and the invalidity of such recommendatioi necessarily entails the invalidity of the said decision (see, inte alia, in this respect, Michaeloudes v. The Republic,
(1979). 20 C.L.R. 56, 72, Papaleontiou v. The Republic,
(1970)3 C.L.R 54, 62, Eraclidouv. CompensationOfficer,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 44 53 and Conclusions, supra, p. 244). 25 30 In view of all the foregoing both the relevant decision of th< Council of Ministers and the recommendation of the Graii Commission that led to it have to be, and are hereby, annulled without it being either useful or necessary to pronounce or. any one of the many other issues that were raised in the presenl proceedings. In the light of all relevant considerations I have decided to make no order as to costs in this case. Subjudice decisionannulled.No order as to costs. 139