(1987)1986 August 6 tTRIANTAFYLLIDES, Ρ] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION ANTONISSTYLIANOUZAMBAS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, Respondent. (CaseNo. 658/84). Customs and Excise Duties — Motor Vehicles,importation of byCypnots — Exemption from importduty —Order188/82, of theCouncilofMinisters— 'Permanentsettlement abroad*—It impliesapennanent home—Residence forstudiesnotsufficient. Early in September, 1972the applicant went toGreece (Thessaloniki), where hestayed until 1977, whenhewenttoCanada.Whilstin Thessaloniki, theapplicantwas working andstudying. On30.9.82 theapplicantreturnedto Cyprus forresettlement. Hisapplication for duty free importationof amotor car was dismissed ontheground that hisstay in Thessaloniki wasof a temporary nature.Hencethepresent recourse. 5 10 Held, dismissing the recourse:
(1)The notion of permanent settlement abroad for thepurposes of Order 188/82of theCouncilof Ministers excludes residence abroad for studies andentailshaving a permanenthome.Ordinary residence isnot sufficient. 2)Inthe lightofthematerial before thisCourtthesub jucice decision was reasonably open totheDirectorofCustoms. 15 Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Rossides v.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R. 1482; Matsas v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.
- 1394 20 3C.L.R. Zambas v.Republic Recourse. Recourse against the dismissal, by the respondent, of applicant's application forthefree of customsdutyimportationof a motorvehicleasa repatriated Cypriot. 5 A. Magos,forthe applicant. N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur.adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.readthefollowingjudgment. Bymeans 10 of the present recourse the applicant challenges, in effect, the decision oftheDirectoroftheDepartmentofCustomsandExcise, who comes under the respondent Ministry of Finance, to dismiss hisapplicationforthefree ofcustomsdutyimportationofamotor vehicle.The said decision wascommunicated tothe applicant by 15 a letterdated the25th September
- It appears that in September 1972 the applicant went to Thessaloniki, in Greece and, then early in 1977, he went to CanadafromwherehereturnedtoCyprusonthe30thSeptember 1982, forthepurpose of permanent resettlement here. 20 While he was in Thessaloniki the applicant was working but, also,studyingand hewasawarded a Degree in Economics. As it appears from the aforesaid letter of the 25th September 1984the reason for refusing his application in question was that his stay abroad in Thessaloniki was treated, by the Director of 25 Customs, as being of a temporary nature and, therefore, his permanent settlement abroad did not last for a period of at least ten years,asrequired undertherelevantlegislativeprovision (see Order No. 188, in the Third Supplement, Part I, to the Official Gazette ofthe 11thJune 1982). 30 There were taken into account inthisconnection the facts that the applicant had left Cyprus in 1972 as a student, that he had enrolled in a school of higher education in Thessaloniki, that he obtained a student's identity card for use in relation to public means of communications in Greece and that he had been 35 receiving as a student an allowance from the Ministry of Social Insurance in Greece. Consequently, the period of time during whichtheapplicantwasinThessalonikiwastreatednotasaperiod 1395 TriontafylUdes P. Zambas v.Republic
(1987)of permanent settlement but as a stay of a temporary nature for purposes ofstudies. Thesoleissuewhichhastobedetermined inthepresent caseis whether, on thebasisof theparticular circumstances of thiscase, it was correctly decided by the Director of Customs that the stay 5 of the applicant in Thessaloniki was of a temporary, and not ofa permanent, nature. Useful reference, inthisrespect,maybe madeto,interalia,the cases of Rossides v. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1482, 1486, and Matsas v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 54, 58-62, from 10 which there emerges that the notion of «permanent settlement» abroad, for the purposes of Order 188/82, is taken to exclude residence abroad for purpose of studies and that «permanent settlement» entailshaving a permanent home and notbeing only ordinarily resident. 15 Inthe lightof the particularfactsofthepresent case I am ofthe view that it was reasonably open to the Director of Customs to reach the conclusion, on a proper application of Order 188/82, thatthestayoftheapplicant inThessaloniki,wherehestudied and worked, was of a temporary nature, and not a permanent 20 settlement there. In the result present recourse fails and it is accordingly dismissed; butwith no order astoitscosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 1396 25