3 CXJL 1984 January 14 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION PANAYiOTIS TSIKKINIS, Applicant. v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS, Respondent. (Case No. 42/80). 5 10 15 20 Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Reasoning —Cannot be supplemented subsequently by material which was not available to theorganconcernedatthetime thesubjudice decision was reached by it—Rejection of applicationfor a licence for the possession and operation of wireless radio equipment. for "security reasons"—Obscure reference to "security reasons'" too general and vague—Sub judice decision annulled for lack of due reasoning. When the applicant, a radio electrician, applied to the respondent for a licence for the possession and operation by him, on an amateur basis, of wireless radio equipment, he was informed that it was impossible to grant him such a licence, and whenheaskedto beinformed ofthereasonsfor whichthe licence had been refused he was informed that his application had been rejected for security reasons. Hence this recourse. In the relevant administrative records there was a letter by the Chief of Police, which was written after the filing of the recourse, wherein there appear reasons for the sub judice refusal. Held, that the obscure reference to "security reasons*' are too general and vague, in the circumstances of the present case, and consequently, the sub judice decision suffers from lack of due reasoning; tha* no relevan* r,dministrative record exists 1577 TsOckinis τ. Republic
(1984)from which the reasoning of the sub judice decision may be derived, except the letter of the Chief of Police; that such letter was written after thefilingby the applicant of the present re course and after the second letter to the applicant; that the reasoning of an administrative decision cannot be supplemented subsequently by material which was not available to the organ concerned at the time when such decision was reached by it; and that accordingly the subjudice decision has to be annulled on the ground of lack of due reasoning. 5 Subjudicedecision annulled. 10 Cases referred to: Vassiliou v. The Republic
(1982)3 GL.R. 220 at p. 228, 229; Sofocleous v. The Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 786 at p. 796; Petrides v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 216 at p. 220; Decisionsof the Greek Council of State Nos.: 1412/64, 15 1785/64, 1140/65, 2162/65, 782/68, 3624/72 and 655/75. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to grant applicant a licence for the possession and operation by him, on an amateur basis, of a wireless radio equipment. 20 Chr. Pourgourides, for the applicant. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. reaa the following judgment. By the 25 present recourse the applicant challenges the decision of the respondent Minister of Communications and Works by means of whiah his application for a licence for the possession and operation by him, on an amateur basis, of wireless radio equip ment was dismissed. 30 The applicant is a radioelectrician and on the 16th June 1979 he applied for the licence concerned. By letter dated the 11th December 1979 he was informed that it was impossible to grant to him such licence. As in the said letter therewere notstatedthereasonsfor which 35 the licence had been refused counsel for the applicant asked, by 1578 3 C.L.R. Tsikklnls v. Republic Triantafyllides P. a letter dated the 10th January 1980, to be informed of such reasons. On the 3rd March 1980 the applicant was informed that his application had been rejected foi security reasons. 5 As it appears from the relevant administrative records, which were placed before the Court, the Ministry of Interior, acting on the basis of the views of the Police, objected to the grant of the licence in question to the applicant. In a relevant letter, dated the 25th April 1980 and addressed by the Chief of Police 10 to the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, it is stated that there was information that the applicant had been involved in 1973 in subversive actions against the Government and, therefore, for securityreasonshewasconsidered to be unsuitable to have an amateur wireless licence, and, also, that the work15 shop of the applicant did not afford enough security for the safe keeping of wireless apparatus. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant that the sub judice decision is not duly reasoned and that there do not exist any relevant administrative records from which the reason20 ing for such decision may be derived (see, in this respect, inter alia, Vassiliouv. The Republic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 220, 228, 229, Sofocleousv. TheRepublic,
(1982)3C.L.R. 786,796andPetrides v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 216, 220). I am of the view that the reasons which are contained in the 25 letter of the 3rd March 1980, which was addressed to the applicant by the Ministry of Communications and Works, namely, the obscure reference to "security reasons", are too general and vague, in the circumstances of the present case, and consequently,thesubjudicedecisionsuffers from lackof due reason30 ing. No relevant administrative record exists from which the reasoning of the sub judice decision may be derived, except the above referred to letter of the Chief of Police dated 25th April 1980. It has to be observed, however, that such letter 35 was addressed to the Ministry of Interior after the filing by the applicant of the present recourse on the 7th March 1980 and after the aforesaid letter to the applicant of the 3rd March 1980; and the reasoning of an administrative decision cannot 1579 Triantafyllides P. Tsikkints v. Republic
(1984)be supplemented subsequently by material which was not available to the organ concerned at the time when such decision was reached by it (see the Decisions of the Council of State in Greece in cases 1412/1964, 1785/1964, 1140/1965, 2162/1965, 782/1968, 3624/1972, 655/1975). 5 In the light of all the foregoing I am of the opinion that the sub judice decision has to be annulled on the ground of lack of due reasoning. Of course, the respondent Ministry of Communications and Works is at liberty, when reaching a new decision regarding 10 the application of the applicant for the licence in question, to consider all relevant material now before it. I will not make any order as to the costs of this recourse. Subjudice decision annulled. No order as to costs. 1580 15