(1984)1984 February 18 [TRLVNTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION STEPHANOS MICHAELIDES AND OTHERS, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND OTHERS, Respondents. I (CasesNos. 333/69, 32/70, 33/70). Administrative Law—Misconception of fact—Probability that a misconception has led to thetakingof thesubjudice decision— Annulled on this ground. The applicants in these recourses challenged the decision of the respondents not to provide to them new dwellings at the 5 locality "Ambelitis" where the villages of Statos and Ayios Photios were relocated after landslides had occurred at such villages in 1969. Held, that theapplications oftheapplicantsfor newdwellings were examined in such a manner that it is, to say the least, 10 probable that they all wererejected dueto material factual misconception; that if an applicant succeeds in establishing that there exists a probability that a misconception has led to the taking of the administrative decision complained of by him it has to be annulled on this ground; and that, therefore, the sub 15 judiceadministrativedecisionshavetobeannulledandtheapplications of the applicants for new dwellings have to be re-examined. Subjudice decisions annulled. ;t522 3 C.L.R. MichaelidesandOthersv.Republic Cases referred to: Papaonisiforou v. EducationalService Commission
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1182 at pp. 1184-1186; Fournia Ltd. v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 262 at p.
- 5 Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents not to provide applicantswithnewdwellingsatthelocality "Ambelitis" where the villages of Statos and Ayios Photios were relocated. St. Erotocritou (Mrs.), for ths applicants. 10 S. Nicolaides,Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourses the applicants are challenging, in effect, 15 the decision of the respondents not to provide to them new dwellings—and in some instances even a second new dwelling to each one of them—at the locality "Ambilitis" where the villages of Statos and Ayios Photios were relocated after landslides had occurred at such villages in
- 20 The terms on which the relocation of the said villages was to be effected appear in a relevant decision of the Council of Ministers, dated 15th May 1969 (No. 8737); and material for the,present proceedings are its provisions that "those having a dwelling and permanent residence in the village are entitled 25 to the grant of a new dwelling" and that "in cases in which afamilypossessedanotherdwellingdestinedfortheadvancement of a single daughter of it, it will be entitled to another new dwelling". In cases 333/69 and 33/70 the applicants allege that they are 30 entitled to new dwellings as they were the owners of dwellings at the material time, namely in 1969, and they were, also, permanent residents of the villages in question. The applicantsin case 32/70 allegethat eachone of them had, —at_th_e material time, a second dwelling which was destined to •1523 Triantafyllides P. MichaelidesandOthers v. Republic (I9S4) begiven asdowry to a singledaughter and, therefore, that they are entitled to a second new dwelling. The applications of the applicants for new dwellings were refused on the ground that theydid not come within the ambit of the above referred to provisions of the relevant decision of 5 the Council of Ministers. All these cases were heard together in view of their nature. Their hearing was commenced before another Judge of this Court, who before its completion retired, and then, with the consent of both sides, they were heard by me. 10 During these proceedings applicats Nos. 4 and 5 in case 333/69 and applicant No. 12in case 32/70 withdrew their recourses which, in so far as they relate to them, were dismissed accordingly. In the course of the hearing there was adduced, at length, 15 evidence by both sides, by way of affidavits and orally, but I willnotreferindetailtoit. Itsufficestostatethatonthebasis of such evidence I have formed the view that the applications of the applicants for new dwellings were examined in such a manner that it is, to say the least, probable that they all were 20 rejected due to material factual misconceptions. It is wellsettled that if an applicant succeeds in establishing that there exists a probability that a misconception has led to the taking of the administrative decision complained of by him it has to be annulled on thisground (see,inter aha, in this 25 respect, Papaonisiforou v. The Educational Service Commission,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1182, 1184-1186, and Fournia Ltd. v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 262, 279). In the light of the foregoing the sub judice administrative decisionshaveto beannulled andthe applicationsof theappli- 30 cants for new dwellings have to be re-examined. I havedecided not to makeanyorder astothecostsof these cases. Subjudicedecisions annulled. No order as to costs. 35 1524