← Κύπρος

clr/1986/1986_2_64.pdf

(1986)1986 January 30 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.. PIKIS, KOURRIS : JJ-] 1. HARIS ENOT1ADES, 2. HARIS ENOTIADES M.E. & B. Ltd.. Appellants, v. THE POLICE. Respondents. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 4620 - 46211. Constitutional Law—Constitution, Articles 15.J, 15.2 and 25.2 —Right to privacy protected by Article 15.1—Ambit of protection—The Drugs (Control of Quality, Supplies and Prices) Law 6/67, s. 30 (b)—Said section compatible with the Constitution. 5 The Drugs (Control of Quality, Supplies and Prices) Law 6/67 Sections 31(d), 30(
  1. a)and 30(b). The appellants, who are trading in pharmaceutical products, were convicted on a count founded on the provisions of s. 31 (
  2. d)of the Drugs (Control of Quality, Sup- 10 plies and Prices) Law 6/67 for refusal to produce for inspection books and records at the request of an Inspector of Health (nominated under s. 30 (a)) made under s. 30(
  3. b)of the said law. The nub of the appeals is that the authority given under 15 s. 30
  4. fb)to probe the conduct of traders and manufacturers of drugs is invidious to the right of privacy, guaranteed by Article 15.1 of the Constitution and irreconcilable with its provisions. The judgment of the Court was delivered 64 by Pikis, J. 20 L.R. Enotiades and Another v. Police Triantafyllides. P. delivered a separate judgment based on somewhat different reasoning. Held, dismissing the appeals A) Per Pikis, J., Kourris, J., concurring;
(1)It is unnecessary to debate American Law on the subject because such law is founded on the provisions of the.fourth and fifth amendments that have no direct parallel in our Constitution.
(2)Article 15.1 of the Constitution was authoriia'.ivcK interpreted by the Full Bench of this Court in Police v. Georghiades
(1983)2 C.L.R. 33, wherefroin the follow iiv: propositions emerge: (
  1. a)The right to privacy is confina! to inherently private aspects of personal and t'ainil) liiV. (
  2. b)An objective test is applied to determine what is a private, personal matter in the sense of Article 15.1 am! (
  3. c)the need to ensure unfettered development of the per­ sonality of the individual, a universal aspiration of man­ kind and ethical standards at anyone time, are relevant in determining whether particular aspects of conduct are pri­ vate, personal matters.
(3)The right to privacy as framed by Article 15.1 is confined to personal and family matters, which are those immediately connected with the person, necessary for the preservation of his individuality. If his ac-ions affect others, he cannot claim the protection of Article 15.1, unless the relationship between them is confidential, in the sense explained in the case of Georghiades, supra.
(4)Trading and business activities are not of their na­ ture personal matters. The relationship between trader and customer is commercial, not confidential.
(5)The regulatory power of the State can be extended to the carrying on of a trade or business in the interest, inter alia, of public health (Article 25.2 of the Constitu­ tion), provided formalities, conditions or restrictions im­ posed thereby are sanctioned by Law. Law 6/67 is such a law. B) Per Triantafyllides, P., dismissing the appeals for different reasons:
(1)In Georghiades' case supra there did not appear to exist a definite majority as regards the authoritative interpretation of Article 15.1 of the Conβ5 Enotiades and Another v. Police (19S6) s:itution in relaton to the right of privacy and therefore, the Georghiades' case is not binding precedent.
(2)Article 15.1 of the Constitution coiresponds closeh to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe, which after its ratification by Cyprus, is part of our law. Consequently, some of the relevant case-law of the European Commission of Human Rights may be usefully referred to.
(3)The statutory provision requiring the appellants to produce books and records kept by them does result in infringement of the riglir to privacy protected by Article 15.1, but such interference is justifiable under Article 15.2 of the Constitution as being necessary in the interests, inter alia, of public health and, also for the protection of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to other persons. Appeals dismissed. Cases referred to: Police v. Georghiades
(1983)2 C.L.R. 33; The Board for Registration of Architects and Civil Engineers v. Kvriakides
(1966)3 C.L.R. 640; Decisions of the European X. v. The united D. R. 239); Commission of Human Kingdom (Application Rights: 9702/82, 30 X. v. Belgium (Application 9804/82, 31 D.R. 231); Decision of the European Court of Human Rights; Dudgeon (Judgment delivered on 22.10.81). American Cases cited in argument: Boyd v. United States
(1885)29 L.Ed. 746; Camara v. Municipal Court oi San Francisco, 2d 930. See v. City of Seattle
(1967)18 L.Ed. 2d 943; 66 18 L.Ed. 2 C.L.R. Enotiadea and Another v. Police Marshallv. Bartow's Inc.
(1978)56 L.Ed. 2d 305; State of Michinganv. Tyler
(1978)56 L.Ed. 2d 486; Donovan v. Dewey
(1981)69 L.Ed. 2d 262; Michingan v. Clifford
(1983)78 L.Ed. 2d 477; 5 Katz v. United States
(1967)19 L.Ed. 2d 576; •FederalTradeCommissionv. American TobaccoCo.
(1923)68 L. Ed. 696; Davis v. United States
(1946)90 L.Ed. 1453. Appeals against conviction and sentence. 10 Appeals against conviction and sentence by Haris Enotiades and Another who were convicted on the 20th February, 1985 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 20015/84 on one count of the offence of failing to produce for inspection books and records at the request of 15 an Inspector of Health contrary to section 31 (
  1. d)of the Drugs (Control of Quality, Supplies and Prices) Law, 1967 (Law No. 6/67) and were sentenced by Kronides, S.D.J. to pay £150.- fine each and accused No. 1 was further ordered to enter into a recognizance of £300.- for one year 20 to keep the law. K. Tafarides, for the appellant. Gl. Hadjipetrou, for the respondents. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The judgment of the Court will be given by Pikis, J., but I will add some remarks of my own. 25 30 PIKIS J.: The appellants trade in pharmaceutical products. They were convicted on a count founded on the provisions of s. 31 (
  2. d)of the Drugs (Control of Quality, Supplies and Prices) Law 1967 (6/67), hereinafter "the law", for refusal to produce for inspection books and records at the request of an Inspector of Health (nominated under s. 30 (a)) made under s. 30 (
  3. b)of the law. They were sentenced to pay a fine; appellant 1 was additionally ordered to enter into a recognizance to keep the law. They owned up their persistent refusal to produce the documents 67 Pikis J Enottades and Another ν Police
(1986)in question as a deliberate exercise of the right vested them imck-i Article 15.1 of the Comtituiion. entitling them to keop sciot lo themselves dealing- with .-ustomers. Ί\\: request T-i produce them and llv law aiuhorising a statu­ tory claim to production, were unconstitutional lor conl'hci 5 with tho provision^ of the rights sale· uarJed by pd>agrah I oi -.ti'cic ο to the piovisinr on which they were re­ pugnant Fuithei. the iclevant ,>ro\ IMOIIS uf the law and the impugned acton vin^tioiie-'l thereby. weie inconsistent, as trey argued before the trial Cour\ wuh aspects o! Ar- 10 tide U of ihe Constitution -.afegiurding the right to liberty and security of person Ttie trial Couit found ihr <ek-vant provisio;:': of the law to b· cunpafible with hoth articles of ihe ConrHtmion and dismi^ed tiih^-ssior.s of uneoP'tUntionaliU On appeal. 15 uibmiss'or of unconstitutionality was confined to Article 15.
  1. The nub of the appeal is that the auih >rity given under s. 30 (h) to probe the conduct of iridTs and manu­ facturers ol drugs is invidious to the right of privacy, gua­ ranteed by Article 15.1 and irreconciteb'- with its prov- 20 sions The submission is tint trading or business activ.tv is bv \t$ nature a personal ivl'nr merging projection under Article 15.
  2. Put in another way the submisson is that the right to p:ivac\ inheres In every trade and business activity. shieldinc its conduct or Ciccise from pab'lc or State scru- 25 tiny. The proposition was main'v supported by reference to American caselaw1 on the interpretation and appl;cation of the fourth and fifth amendments to the US.A Const'lution. protecting the individual, resnectively. from unreaso'iable searches and seizures and sclf-criminat on Reference -™ to American precedent was made because the right to pri­ vacy is interwoven with the protection given by the two amendments, and facets of it arc directly protected there­ by. None of the cases cited supports the sweep;ng proposi­ tion that business activity is, per se. a personal matter be- 35 ' Boyd ν United States
(1885)29 L Ed 746, Camara ν Municipal Court of San" Francisco, 18 L Ed 2d 930, See ν City of Seattle
(1967)18 L Ed 2d 943, Marshall ν Barlow's Inc (1978} 56 L Ed 2d 305, State of Michingan ν Tyler
(1978)56 L Ed 2d 480, Donovan ν Dewey
(1981)69 LEd 2d 262, Michingan ν Clifford
(1983)78 LEd 2d 477. Katz ν United States
(1967)19 LEd 2d 576, Federal Trade Commission ν American Tobacco Co
(1923)68 LEd 696. Davis ν United States
(1946)90 LEd 1453 68 ?, C.L.R. ? Enotiades and Another v. Police Pikis J. yond'the regulation i.r scrutiny of the State. Or. the contrary, one of the decisions cited, namely, Dowr-wi supports the preposition thai hazarduous business activity may be the subject el control and regulation, including :nspictif!n without. :: a'diclal warrarU. Tn thai situation, it was observed. the subject ;:an have no reasonable expectation, to keep his activity private to himself, free frc::i periodic inspec'.ions. We consider it unnecessary to debate American law founded en the provisions of the four*b and fifth amend10 ments that have no direct parallel in our Constitution. In Cyprus, the content and context of the right to privacy is the subject of a snecifi': provision of the Constitution— Article 15.1—modelled on the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human R'ghts. As Indeed it 15 is the cast with Article 8 1. the application of Article 15.1 is confined to matters of personal and family life. Article 15.1 was authoritatively interpreted by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Police v. Georghiades?. wherefrom the following propositions emerge:20
  1. fa)The right to privacy is confined to inherently private aspects of persona' and family life. (
  2. b)An objective test is applied to determine what is a private, personal matter : n the sense of Article 15.1, and 25 (
  3. c)the need to ensure unfettered development of the personality of the individual, a universal aspiration of mankind and, technical standards at anyone time. are relevant in determining whether particular aspects of conduct are private, personal matters. 30 Trad : ng and business activities are net of their nature private personal matters. They involve impersonal conduct with the public. The relationship between trader and customer is commercial not confidential. That a trader maydeal on different terms with different customers does not make the relationship confidential. 35 ' FawcRtt—Application of the European Convention on Human Rights. 1969, p, 185 et seq. -
(1983)3 C.L.R. 33. 60 Pikis J. Enotiades and Another v. Police
(1986)The right of privacy as framed in Article 15.1, is conrined to personal and family matters. Personal matters in this sense are those immediately connnected with the person. necessary for the preservation of his Individuality. They encompass every .activity he should, as an individual entity, be free to undertake or express without intrusion from outside: the private preserve of every individual where his actions are of concern to him only. If his actions affect others, he cannot claim the protection of Article 15.1 unless the relationship between them is confidential, in the sense explained in the case of Georghiades, supra. In that area, neither the State nor anyone else has a right to pry in his affairs. Not only the State has a right but often a social duty, too, to protect the public from dealings that may, in the absence of Regulations, be harmful to it. 5 10 I5 If the submissions of appellants were upheld in this case, not only the law here under consideration but every piece of legislation conferring power on State authorities to subject to scrutiny business dealings by requiring production of business records, would have to be expunged as uncon- 20 stitutional; for example, income tax legislation!. The regulatory power of the State can. on constitutional authority,2 be extended to the carrying on of a trade or business in the interest, inter alia, of public health provided formalities, conditions or restrictions imposed thereby are 25 sanctioned by law. The Drugs (Control of Quality, Supplies and Prices) Law 1967, is such a law, designed to protect the public by appropriate restrictions from exposure to the uncontrolled production and sale of drugs and medicine. The law is not only compatible with the Constitution but 30 a piece of legislation absolutely necessary in the interest of the wellbeing of citizens of the country. The appea's are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: Though I agree with the outcome of these appeals as stated in the judgment just delivered by 1 1 See, Income Tax Law 58/61 (as amended), and The Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law 4/78 (as amended). Article 25.2—The Board few Registration of Architects & Civil Engineers v. Christodoulos Kyriakides
(1966)3 C.L.R. 640. 70 35 2 C.L.R. Enotiades and Another v. Police Triantafyllides P. my brother Judge Pikis J., I have found it necessary to add some remarks of my own because my reasoning is somewhat different from his. In his own judgment Pikis J. has, as regards the right S to respect for private life, followed the approach to the interpretation of Article 15
(1)of our Constitution which is to be found in his judgment in the case of Police v. Georghiades, (198-3) 2 C.L.R. 33, with which Hadjianastassiou J. and Loris J. agreed. A rather different approach to such in10 terpretation was adopted in that case by me, with which Malachtos J. and, to a certain extent, Stylianides J. agreed. Thus, in the Georghiades case there did not appear to exist a definite majority as regards the authoritative interpretation of Article 15
(1)of the Constitution in relation to 15 the right of privacy and, therefore, the Georghiades case is not binding precedent. The appellants in the present case have invoked the protection, by means of Article 15.1 of the Constitution, of their right to respect for their private lives. 20 Article 15.1 of our Constitution corresponds closely to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe, which after its ratification by Cyprus, is part of the law of Cyprus. 25 Conseouently, some of the relevant case-law of the European Commission of Human Rights may be usefully referred to: 30 Tn the case of X v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 9702/82, 30 D.R. p. 239) it was held that though the obligation of a householder to complete a census form is an interference with his right to respect for private and family life such interference was justified in the interests of the pconomic well-being of the country, on the basis of the provisions of Article 8
(2)of the Convention. 35 In X v. Belgium (Application No. 9804/82. 31 D.R. 231) the applicant, after he had sold various properties, was requested by the tax authorities to give information as to how he had used the money he had obtained. The applicant explained that the money had been partly invested in his 71 Triantafyllides P. Enotiades end Another v. Police
(1986)own firm MU\ that the remainder was ίο be invested else­ where. The tax authorities having found such information insufficient asked the applkv.ru for detailed explanations about his private imcUments and. bei-.g dissatisfied with the further explanations which were then given by the 5 applicant, they decided to impose tax on the income which they assumed that the \op!:caiU had earned from the re­ mainder of the money which had not been invested in his firm. It was held by the European Commission of Human Rights that the fact lhat a tax authority is entitled to re- 10 quire the applicant to produce a statement of his private expenditures constituted an interference with his private life: hut the Commission went on to find that such inter­ ference was justified under Article 8
(2)of the Convention inasmuch as il was necessary in a democratic society for 15 the economic well-being of the country. The European Court of Human Rights has, in cases such as thaf of Dudgeon (in which judgment was given on the ??nd October 1 P S1). also dealt with the right to privacy, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 20 In the present instance Τam of the view that the statutory provision reouiring the appellants to produce for inspection books and records kept by them does result in an infringment of the right to privacy of the appellants which is pro- 25 tected by Article 15.1 of our Constitution, but such inter­ ference is justifiable under Article 15.2 of the Constitution as being necessary in the interests, inter alia, of public health and, also, for the protection of the rights and liber­ ties guaranteed by our Constitution to other persons. 30 Therefore, these appeals have to fail as it cannot be found that the convictions of the appellants were based on a statutory provision which was unconstitutional. Appeals dismissed. 72

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.