(1987)1987November7 (KOURRIS J ] INTHE MATTEROFARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION DEMETRAKIS EVGENIOU, Applicant, ν THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS, THROUGH THE PERMITSREVIEW AUTHORITY, Respondent (CaseNo605/85) Motor transport — 77ie Motor Transport Regulation Law 9/82, as amended by Law 84/84 — Pennits Review Authonty — Powers of — TTie cntena laid down at its meeting of 17 485 — Ultra vires the law — Kynacou ν The Republic
(1986)3 CLR 1845, KEM TAXI Ltd and Another ν Republic
(1986)3CLR 703followed 5 The Permits Review Authonty reversed a decision of the Licensing Authonty, whereby the applicant had been granted licences for cars hired without a dnver The relevant minutes of the Permits Review Authonty state that the Authonty «takingintoaccountthecntenawhich were setoutatitsmeetingon 1 0 17 4 85 . allows the appeals . because Mr Evgeniou does not satisfy the requirement of s 5
(9)of theLaw» * Hence thisrecourse Held, annulling the sub judice decision
(1)The cntena laid down by the Authonty andwhichwere takenintoconsiderationinamvingatthesubjudice decision are ultra vires the law (Kynacou ν The Republic
(1986)3 C L R 1845 andKEM TaxiLtd ν The Republic
(1986)3 C L R 703 adopted) The subJudicedecisionhas tobe annulled 2^Assumingthatthe criteriaarenot ultraviresthelaw, thisrecourseshould be dismissed, because,in thelightof the material beforeit,itwas reasonably •Uw9/S2 1782 15 20 3CLR. Evgenloa v. Republic open to the respondent toreach theconclusion thatapplicant did not satisfy therequirements ofsection5
(9). Subjudice decision annulled. Costsagainst respondents. 5 Casesreferedto: TsouloftasandOthersv.77ie/?epub/ic
(1983)3CLR 425; Kynacou v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C L R . 1845; KEMTaxiLtd.andanother v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.703; Vassiliou v.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 220. 10 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to annul the licencesgranted bytheLicensingAuthoritytotheapplicantforthe hire of carswithout a driverinrelation to three vehicles. A.S. Angelides, for the applicant. 15 G. Erotokritou (Mrs.), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse, the applicant seeks a declaration of the Court that the 20 decision of the respondent Authority, dated 20.4.1985 and communicated to the applicant and interested parties by letter dated 3.5.1985, bywhichthe respondent Authority had annulled the Licensing Authority decision of 9.1.1985, to grant to the applicant licencesforthehireofcarswithout adriverinrelation to 25 three vehicles, isnulland void and of no effect whatsoever. The applicant applied on 15.6.1983to the Licensing Authority for a licenceto own and manage fifteen self-drive cars commonly known as «Z»cars. Areport dated 13.7.1983 was subsequently prepared with regard to the said application by a Transport 30 Inspector and the Licensing Authority examined the abovementioned application at its meeting of 1.2.1984 and decided to grant to the applicant licences for the hire of cars without a driver in relation to three vehicles. By a letter dated 9.1.1985 the Licensing Authority communicated to the applicant 35 itsabove-mentioned decision. Κουπί·J. Evgenlou v. Republic
(1987)The Interested Parties, Secunty Travel Limited. Η & C Hotels Catenng Limited, KEM Taxi Limited and others and Chnstos Papegeorghiou being dissatisfied with the decision of the Licensing Authonty, filed hierarchical recourses to the Permits Review Authonty under s 4(a)of the MotorTransport Regulation 5 Laws 1982 and 1984 Laws 9/82 and 84/84 The hierarchical recourses were heard by the Permits Review Authonty atitsmeeting of 18 3 1985 andafter taking intoaccount all thefacts and circumstances of thecase, itdecided atitsmeeting of 20 4 1985 to allow the hierarchical recourses and to annul the 10 decision of the Licensing Authonty The decision of thePermitsReview Authonty,dated20 4 1985, was communicated to the applicant and all concerned by letter dated 3 5 1985 and against this decision the applicant filed the present recourse 15 The sub judice decision reads as follows «Η Αναθεωρητική Αρχή Αδειών α φ ο ύ μελέτησε όλα τ α στοιχεία των σχετικών φακέλλων και όλαόσαέχουν λεχθεί από μέρους των προσφευγόντων και των ενδιαφερομένων μερών και λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τ α 20 κριτήρια π ο υ έθεσε στη συνεδρία της στις 17/4/1985, παίρνει τις π ι ο κάτω αποφάσεις:-
- Αποδέχεται τις προσφυγές 145/85, 291/85 και507/85 π ο υ υποβλήθηκανεναντίον της απόφασης της Αρχής 25 Αδειών ν α χορηγηθούν 3 άδειες οχήματος εκμισθουμένου άνευ οδηγού στον κ. Δημητράκην Ευγενίου. Αποφασίζεται η αποδοχή των προσφυγώνδιότι ο κ. Ευγενίου δεν πληροί τ ι ς προϋποθέσεις τ ο υ άρθρου 30 5 (εδάφιον 9)του Νόμου». (VideAppendix Β.) InEnglish itreadsas follows. «The Permits Review Authority having considered all the material of the relevant files and all that has been said on 35 behalf of the applicantsand on behalf of the InterestedParties 1784 3 C.L.R. Evgenlou v. Republic K o u n i s
- and taking into account the criteria which were before its meeting on 17.4.1985, reached the following decisions:- 5 10
- Itallows the appeals (Recourses) 144/85, 291/85 and 507/85 which were filed against the decision of the Licensing Authority togrant licences for thehire of cars without a driver in relation to3 vehicles to Mr.Demetrakis Evgeniou. It has been decided to allow the appeals because Mr. Evgeniou does not satisfy the requirements of s. 5
(9)of the Law.. I thinkitis pertinentatthis stage toset out s. 5
(9). Section 5
(9)reads as follows:- «Ουδεμία άδεια οδικής χρήσεως θα χορηγείται αναφορικώς π ρ ο ς οιονδήποτε όχημα δημοσίας χρήσεως 15 π ρ ο ς εκτέλεσιν οιασδήποτεοδικής χρήσεως δι' ην απαιτεί ται τοιούτον όχημα δυνάμει των διατάξεωντουπ α ρ ό ν τ ο ς Νόμου, εκτός εάν ο ιδιοκτήτης τούτου πείσει την Αρχήν Αδειών ότι μετέρχεται ή προτίθεται ό π ω ς μετέλθει την μεταφορικήν επιχείρησινω ς κύριονα υ τ ο ύεπάγγελμα». 20 25 InEnglish itmay be translated as follows: «No road service licence shall be granted in respect of any public service vehicle for the service of any road for which such vehicle is required under the provisions of this Law, unless its owner convinces the Licensing Authority that he carries on or intendsto carry on thetransport business as his main occupation.» The nature and character of hierarchical recourses was dealt with in the case of A Tsouloftas and Others v. The Republic of Cyprus,
(1983)3 C.L.R.426. Itwas held thatthetest by which the 30 validity of the decision of the Permits Review Authority must be judged isthe same as thatapplicable tothe Licensing Authority. The sub judice decision was issued in exercise of statutory powers with which therespondentAuthority isvestpHby s.4(A) of the MotorTransportRegulationLaws,1982 and 1984u-aws9/Bz 35 and 84/84). The wordingof s. 4(A)
(3)issimilarto the wording of the abolishedsection4
(2)of Law 9/82 and s.6
(2)of the abolished MotorTransportRegulationLaws 1964 -1975. 1785 KountaJ. Evgeniouv.Republic
(1987)The Minister's powers under s. 6
(2)were expounded in the Tsouhftas case (supra) where atpage 431 itwas stated: «Ahierarchical recourse isnot a judicial proceeding in any sense. It is not intended to review the correctness of the hierarchically subordinated organ's decision by reference to 5 the soundness of the reasoning propounded in respect thereof, but to establish a second tier in the decision-taking process, designed to eliminate mistakes as well as abuse of authority by subordinates... Both organs in the hierarchy are charged withthesameduty-topromote theobjectsofthelaw 10 bythe application of itsprovision in particular cases.» Andat p.432 itisstated: «The test by which we must judge the validity of the decision of theMinisteristhesame with thatapplicable tothe LicensingAuthority. Itisthis:Whether itwasreasonablyopen 15 to the Minister, inview of the provisions of the Law, and the material before him, todecide as he did.» By the time this case came up for hearing, Pikis, J. delivered judgment in the case of Vassos Kynacou v. The Republic of Cypws Through the Permits Review Authority,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 20 1845, and heldthatthecriterialaiddown wereultraviresthe Law because «theywere designed tointroduce a body or rules outside thecontext of thelawandinsome areasinopposition toit»and he annulled the decision of the Permits Review Authority. Also, Sawides, J., whodelivered judgment inthe case of KEM 25 TaxiLimited, tradingunder the business name "KEMTours», and another v. The Republic ofCyprus,
(1986)3C.L.R. 703,alsoheld that the criteria are ultravires. Counsel for theapplicantinvited theCourttoadopt and relyon the case of Kynacou (supra) because the facts in that case are 30 similartothe factsofthepresent caseinthatthe Licensing Review Authority heldthattheapplicantdidnotsatisfytherequirementsof s.5
(9)of the Lawas inthepresent case. Counsel for the respondent Authority, on the other hand, contended thattheKynacou casehasnoapplication tothefactsof 35 the case inhand because theapplicant inthe present case did not satisfy the requirements ofs.5
(9)of the Law. Counsel submitted that the Licensing Review Authority proceeds and applies the «criteria» ifitisfound that an applicant comes under s.5
(9)of the 1786 3 C.L.R. Evgeniouv.Republic KounrUJ. Law and not before. Ifhedoes not come under s. 5
(9)then the applicationofthecriteria doesnotarise andthey donotcomeinto operation and it cannot be said that the Licensing Review Authority relied on criteria which were ultra vires and 5 consequently invalid. In the case of Kyriacou(supra), Pikis J. referred tothe caseof Vassiliou v. TheRepublic,
(1982)3C.L.R. 220 onthequestion of the amenity of Administrative Authorities to adopt a policy decision affecting theexercise oftheirdiscretionary powers andat 10 p.1851 said the following: 15 20 25 «An administrative authority cannot in theexercise ofits administrative powers override thelawby theevolution of criteria otherthan those laid down intherelevant statute.The one thing they cannot doistoneutralize their discretion to respond tothe merits oftheindividual case. Thesweeping natureofthedirectives laid down inthis case are designed to introduceabody ofrules outside the context of the Law and insome areas inopposition toit.They arenot confined tolaying down theprocedural meansofeliciting the factual background to the application particularly the genuiness of the intention of the pursuer to start a Z-car business as hismainoccupation.Rules (
- c)and (
- d)inparticular seem tolay down criteria unknown tothe lawand establish principles thatmay lead theAdministration to decide without reference tothe individual merits ofthe case.» With duerespect, Iadopt the reasoning of Pikis, J., and I also find that the criteria are ultra vires and invalid and as the respondent Authority inthis case relied on them inexamining the hierarchical recourse, I have reached theconclusiontoannultheir 30 decision. Consequently, the argument of counsel for the respondents cannotstand. Ishall nowproceed and examine thecaseifitwere held thatthe criteria are notultraviresthe Law. The applicant, during the examination of the hierarchical 35 recourse by the respondent Authority onthe 18th March, 1985, said, interalia,the following: «Έχωτουριστικό κέντρο στην Κακοπετριά. Μιλώ γιατην πλατεία τηςΚακοπετριάς. Είναι καφέ και εστιατόριο Οπό 1787 KountaJ. Evgeniouv.Republic
(1987)τ η ν επωνυμία 'Πλατεία ΚακοπετριάςΤΑΒΕΡΝ' η ταβέρνα μου. Έχω και ένα κινηματογράφο καλοκαιρινό. Από τ ο 1971 εργάζομαι αποκλειστικά εγώ μόνο πάνω στα τ ο υ ρ ι σ τ ι κ ά . Ανεφέρθη προηγουμένως από τον κ. Πέτσα ότι έχω καφενείο στην Κακοπετριά. Δεν είναι καφενείο. Είναι τ ο υ ρ ι σ τ ι κ ό κέντρο, έχω αρμοδία σχέση μετονΤουρισμό της Κακοπετριάς, κ α τ ά κάποιο τρόπο ανήκω στην κατηγορία τ ω ν ανθρώπων και των επιχειρηματιών που εργάζονται αποκλειστικά και μόνο μετον τουρισμό.» 5 10 (Videρ.3 of theproceedings before thePermitsReview Authority of its meeting on 18.3.1985.) Itappears from theabove passagethattheapplicant,who is also the Chairman of the Village Committee of Kakopetria, is the owner of a tavern and asummeropen-aircinema andheisdealing 15 with tourism business and it was reasonably open to the respondent Authority to reach the conclusion that the applicant didnotfulfil therequirements ofs.5
(9)ofthe Law, viz., thathe was not carrying onthetransportbusiness and thathe did notintendto carry on the transport business as his main occupation. 20 Another complaint of the applicant is that there is lack of due reasoning in that the respondent Authority in its decision which they communicated to the applicant, they said that the applicant does notfulfil the requirements of s. 5
(9)of the Law. I am of theviewthatthereasoning issufficient and one may also resort to the file of the case. 25 In these circumstances, the recourse is allowed and the sub judice decision isdeclared nullandvoid, with costs infavour of the applicant. Costs to be assessed by the Registrar. 30 Subjudice decision annulled with costs in favourof applicant