clr/1987/1987_3_1511.pdf

(9)—Cars hired without a driver (Zcars) — Whether licensing of. within ambit ofsaid section—Question determined in the affirmative. 5 1U 15 20 Motor transport — The Motor Transport Regulation Law 9/82. asamended by Law 84/84 — Permits Review Authonty — Powers of — Tsouloftasrand Otherst. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R 426 followed The LicensingAuthonty refusedtheapplication of theapplicants forcars hired without adriver (Zcars) pnmanly on the ground that the needs of the country in «Z»cars were satisfied by existing licences The Permits Review Authonty before whom theapplicantsappealed for areview of that decision decided likewise and dismissed their application, but for adifferent reason, namelythattheapplicantsfailedtomeettherequirementsofs.5

(9)ofLaw 9/ 82 inthatthey werenot inthetransporttradeorbusinessnordidthey intend to maketransport their mainoccupation. Hence this recourse. In support of applicants' casecounsel for applicants argued that the licensing of «Z» cars is outside the ambit of the aforesaid sectionof the Law. Held,dismissingtherecourse:

(1)Anghttoacquirealicencetoown public use vehicles is confined to persons having road transport as their main business.

(2)ItissettledthatinfoundingitsdecisionthePermitsReviewAuthontywas not confined to a review of the decision of the hierarchically subordinate 1511

(1987)L.P. Loucaides Ltd. v. Republic body but could extend their inquiry into any matter relevant tothe propnety of the application und any factor beanng on the grant of a road transport licence

(3)'*is clear beyond doubt that <Z-cars are covered by s 5

(9)and subject to itsprovisions 5

(4)Theapplicants didnot havetransport astheirmain business nor did they intend tomake ittheir main business oroccupation Recoursedismissed. Casesreferredto. Olivia TravelLimitedν TheRepublic

(1986)3 C L.R. 2188. 10 L G.lacovtdesEnterpnses Limitedν TheRepublic

(1986)3C L.R 2101; Leda TravelLimitedν TheRepublic

(1986)3 C L R 1742. Tsouloftasand Others ν TheRepublic

(1983)3 C.L R 426, Republic v.KEM Taxi Ltd.and Another

(1987)3 C.L R 1057 Recourse. 15 Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to grant applicants a licence toown, manage and run a number of cars for the purpose of hiringthemtoothers. Chr. Clerides,for the applicants St. loannides (Mrs.), for the respondents. 20 Cur. adv.vult. PIKISJ. readthefollowing judgment.The applicants,acompany limited, are the importers of two known makes of cars, Peugeot and Talbot.They madeapplication totheappropriateauthorityto be licensed to own, manage and run a number of cars for the 25 purpose of hinng them to third parties, commonly known and hereinafter referred toas 'Z'cars. The licences were necessary to meet demand from theircustomers whose vehicles were garaged for repairs and other potential customers, namely foreign visitors, mostly Lebanese who had a preference for thehire of French cars 30 during their stay in the island. Acquisition of 'Z' cars would also serve the needs of a subsidiary company of the appellants in the tourist trade and would further accord with the needs of an insurancecompanywithwhomthe apolicantswere inco-operation 1512 3 C.L.R. L.P. LoucaidesLtd. v. Republic Pikis J. in that 'Z' cars would be made available for the use of insured persons during theperiod of repair of damaged cars. TheLicensing Authority refused theapplicationprimarily onthe ground thatthe needs of the country in 'Z'cars were satisfied by 5 existing licences. The PermitsReviewAuthority before whom the applicants appealed for areview of thatdecision decidedlikewise and dismissed their application but for a different reason. Intheir estimation,theapplicantfailed tomeet therequirements ofs.5

(9)of the Road Transport Regulation Law (Law 9/82) in that the 10 applicants were notinthetransporttradeorbusiness nordidthey intend to make transporttheirmain occupation.According tothe above provision of thelaw, only persons inthetransport business or persons intending to make the transport business their main occupation are qualified for a licence,to own, manage and run 15 vehicles designated for public use. As explained in Olivia Travel Limited v.TheRepublic,*arighttoacquirealicence toown public use vehicles is confined to persons having road transportas their main business. The establishment of a transport business as a subordinate or incidental business activity to another trade or 20 business will not suffice.** It is settled that in founding its decision the Permits Review Authority was not confined to a review of the decision of the hierarchically subordinate body, but could extend their inquiry intoany matterrelevant tothepropriety oftheapplicationandany 25 factor bearing on the grant of a road transport licence.*** Applicants doubted theconstructionplaced by therespondents on s. 5

(9)of the Law and argued that the licensing of X cars is outside the ambit of s. 5

(9). Consequently, it was submitted that the decision rested on a misconception of the law and on that 30 accountvulnerable to be set aside. The application of subsection 9 of s. 5 of Law 9/82 is limited topublic use vehicles, whileinthe *{1986}3CLR 2188 "Seeaslo L.G lacovidesEnterprises Limited ν TheRepublic\l98b) 3 CLR 2101 and Led* TravelLimitedv.TheRepublic.

(1986)3CLR 1742. *** Tsouhftas andOther* ν TheRepublic.

(1983)3CLR 426. Republicν KEMTaxi Ltd andAnother.

(1982)3 CLR. 1057. 1513 PikisJ. L.P.Loucaides Ltd.v.Republic

(1987)contention of counsel 'Z' cars do not fall in that category of vehicles in view of the relevant definition given by the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972, (Law 86/72) as subsequently amended. He sought to reinforce his argument by reference to English Legislation having similar or corresponding objects though different in many material respects from our legislation.Notmuchbenefit canbederivedfrom suchexercise,as both the content and range of application of Cyprus'and English legislation are far from coincidental. 5 Counsel forthe respondents argued that the Law(9/82)makes 10 itplain beyond argument that Z'carsqualify asvehiclesof public use and as such are explicitly subject to the provisions of s.5

(9). Irrespectiveofthedefinition of«vehicleofpublicuse»furnished by Law 86/72, the legislation regulating the grant of road service licences for vehicles of public use expressly qualifies in the 15 definitional section a car designated for hire to third parties asa vehicle of public use.The intention of the legislator is reinforced bythe provisions ofs.5

(6)enumerating the categoriesof vehicles inrespect of which a roadservice licence isaprerequisite fortheir use and operation. 20 Paragraph (d) of section 5

(6)specifically categorises 'Z' carsas falling inthat classof vehicles.Itwould bestrangeif 'Z'carswere excluded from the ambit of s. 5

(9)as it would defy the uniform objective ofthe legislaturetomakeeveryspeciesofroad transport the business of a professional classhaving road transport astheir 25 main occupation. Inmyjudgment itisclearbeyonddoubtthat'Z'carsarecovered by s. 5

(9)and subject to its provisions. That being the case the present recourse must necessarily be dismissed. Whether any subsidiarycompany oftheapplicanttobeestablishedinthefuture 30 specifically devoted to transport business would have a better chance of success in securing 'Z' licences is a matter of speculation. Suffice it to say as re-affirmed in Republic v.KEM Taxi Ltd. (supra), a limited company isfor the purposes of s.5of Law 9/82 too, a different personam from its shareholders and 35 must qualify inher ownrightasa person entitled tothe benefit of the provisions of that section of the law. Given my decision, the application is,forthereasonsexplainedabove,doomed tofailure. Itisunnecessary toexplore thealternativeargument ofcounselfor therespondentsthat'Z'carsarealsoclassified asvehiclesofpublic 40 1514 3 C.L.R. 5 L.P.Loucaides Ltd.v.Republic Pikis J. use under the 1972 legislation and regulations enacted thereunder The judgment may be ended by noting that on any viewofthefactstheapplicantsdidnothavetransportastheirmain business nor did they intend to make it their mam business or occupation In the result, the recourse is dismissed The decision of the respondents is affirmed pursuant to the provisions of Article 1464(a) Recoursedismissed 1515