3CX.R. 1986 May31 fTRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ) INTHE MATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ANDREAS ENTAFIANOS Applicant ν THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTEROF LABOURAND SOCIALINSURANCEAND/OR THE DIRECTOROF SOCIALINSURANCE, Respondents. (CaseNo 649/84) Reasoning of an administraOve act — Reasoning in conflict with administrative records— Ground for annulment 5 Social insurance — Self-employed persons — Advocate with less than ten years' practice — Despite thefactthathesought tocalculatehiscontributions on tt · basisof an income lower than thespecially reduced income provided by law the respondent was not absolved from responsibility to reach a prope, decision in accordance with the law 10 It is an indisputable fact that the applicant was at the matenal time a s< If· employed advocate who had been a practising advocate for less than ten years and therefore under therelevant legislative provisions, he was entitled to have the social insurance contributions payable by him calculated on the basis of aspecially reduced income However the applicant sought to pay contnbutions on an income lower than such specially reducedincome The respondent Directordid notaccept 15 applicant's standand,asaresult,fixedthe amount of income on the basis of which applicant was to pay social insurance contnbutions at a level higher than suchspecialty reducedlevel Hence this recourse 20 Held,annulling thesubjudice decision
(1)The factthatapplicant hadless than ten years' practice appears in the relative administrative records It follows, therefore,that the reasoning on the basis of which the subjudice in the present proceedings decision has been reached, is in conflict with the 1863 Entafiano· v. Republic
(1987)relevant administrative records Moreover, it is clear that the sub judice decision isthe product of amatenal misconception
(2)The fact that the applicant sought tocalculate his contnbutions on the basis of an income lower than what the law provided did not absolve the respondent Director of Social Insurance from his responsibility to reach the proper in the circumstances, and in accordance with therelevant legislative provisions, decision 5 Subjudice decisionannulled Noorderas to costs 10 Casesreferredto Angelides v. The Republic
(1987)3 C LR 1789, HjiDemetnou ν TheRepublic
(1980)3 C LR 20, Mikelhdouv 77ie/?epuWic
(1981)3CLR 461, FoumiaLtd ν TheRepublic
(1983)3 C LR 262 Recourse. 15 Recourse against the decision of the respondents whereby applicant's contributions payable to the social insurance were fixedonthebasisofanincomehigherthanthatstatedbyhimtobe hisincomefor social insurance purposes. A. S.Angelides, for theapplicant. 20 CI. Antoniades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur adv vult. TRIANTAJYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. The applicantchallenges bythisrecourse adecision oftherespondent 25 Director of Social Insurance -who comes under therespondent Minister of Labour and Social Insurance - which was communicatedtohimbyletterdated 15September 1984 and 19 November 1984 andbyvirtue ofwhich therewerefixedthesocial insurancecontributionspayable bytheapplicantonthebasisofan 30 incomehigher thanthatwhichhadbeenstatedbytheapplicantto be hisincomefor social insurance purposes. The legal issues arising in thiscase are closely similar tothose which arose in Angelides v. The Republic, (case 637/84, 1864 3 C.L.R. EntefUno· v. Republic TriantafyUid·» P. determined today and not reported yet)* and, therefore, in this respect, thejudgment given intheAngelides case should be read together with the present judgment and thatjudgment should be treated as forming, tothisextent, part of this judgment. 5 Itis an indisputable fact that the applicant was at the material time a self-employed advocate who had been a practising advocate for lessthan ten years and,therefore, underthe relevant legislativeprovisions, he was entitled tohave thesocial insurance contributions payable by himcalculated onthebasisof a specially 10 reduced income;butthiswas notdoneby therespondentDirector of Social Insurance who computed on a higher incomebasisthe social insurancecontributionspayable by the applicant. Onthebasisofallthematerialbefore metherecanbe nodoubt that the factor of the less than ten years' practice of the applicant 15 ought to have been known to the respondent Director of Social Insurance, on the basis of official records, at least as from April 1984 when, in filling in an official form in relation to his social insurance contributions, the applicant had declared that he had been practising as an advocate from September 1978 and, as a 20 result, he was allowed topay off on thisbasishissocial insurance contnbutions for the period from April 1983 to December 1983 (see, in this connection,paragraph 6 of the affidavit sworn on 23 October 1985 by Georghios Antoniades who is an Assistant Principal Insurance Officer). 25 Itistobe notedthatthe lettersby meansof which thesub judice decision of the respondent Director was communicated to the applicant were written muchlater, on 15September 1984 and 19 November 1984, that is long after the applicant had declared, as aforesaid, in April 1984, that he had been practising as an 30 advocate only as from September 1978. Itfollows, therefore, thatthereasoning onthebasisof whichthe sub judice in thepresent proceedings decision has been reached isinconflict withtherelevant administrative records(see,interalia, HadjiDemetriou v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 20, 26, 35 Mikellidou v. The Republic,
(1981)3 C.L.R. 461, 472, and Foumia Ltd. v. TheRepublic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 262, 276). It is, furthermore, clear, in view of the foregoing, that the sub judice decision was reached on the basis of a material misconception. •(19β7)3θϋί 1789. 1865 TrlaaUfyOM*·P. Eatafiano·v.R*p«Mlc
(1987)The fact that the applicant was seeking to pay his social insurancecontributionsonthebasisofanincomeevenlowerthan that which would have been attributed to him if he had been treated as a self-employed advocate with less than ten years' practice did not absolve the respondent Director of Social 5 Insurance from his responsibility to reach the proper in the circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions, decision regarding the social insurance contributions payable by the applicant; and a most material circumstance was thelessthantenyears'practiceoftheapplicantasaself-employed 10 advocate which was not taken into account at all by the respondent Director. ? Inthe result thisrecourse succeeds and the subjudice decision of the DirectorofSocialInsurance isannulled; but Ishallmake no order astocosts ofthisrecourse. Sub judice decision annulled.No orderas to costs. 1866 15