clr/1987/1987_3_265.pdf

(1)The applicants did not invoke anynew facts in support oftheir request dated 4 10 83 ftfollows thatthesub Judtee decision isconfirmatory oftheprevious decision ofthe2 6.83 and, assuch, tt lacks executory nature

(2)Furthermore, inthelight oftheabove the recourse isoutoftime Zo RecountdfambMo. Costsa&nst appftanfc. 265 D.E.L. Klrxl· v. Impr. Board Yennasoyla

(1987)Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to insist and notremove thecondition fortheinstallation ofabiologicalsystem and other installations for the removal of dirty water in building permit No. 1136dated2ndJune,

1. 5 A. Stylianou (Miss), forthe applicants. A. Kourides, fortherespondents. Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment. The applicantsaretheownersofhotelappartmentssituatedwithinthe 10 area of the Improvement Board of Yermasoyia, who are the appropriate authority fortheissueofbuildingpermitswithin their area. Theappartmentsoftheapplicantswerebuiltapproximatelysix years before the present dispute arose. As it appears from the 15 statement of facte of both parties, as well as from the written addresses of their counsel, thefollowing arethe undisputed facts thatledtothe filing ofthepresent recourse. In 1983 the applicants submitted to the respondents an application for a building permit in order to effect certain 20 alterations and/or additions to their appartments. Their application wasgrantedsubjecttoanumberofconditions,oneof which was the installation of a biological system and other installations for the removal of dirty water. The relevant permit (building permit No. 1136) imposing this condition, was issued 25 and communicated totheapplicantson the2ndJune,
2. It is the allegation of the applicants that although they considered this condition oppressive, since the construction intended to be carried out related only to alterations and/or additions,theydidnotobjecttoitandtheypaidtherelevantfees. 30 However, when theystudiedthematterof theimplementation of thesaidcondition,theyfoundoutthatcompliancewithitmeantan extraexpenseof£35,000.-plustheclosingoftheappartments for a period of at least sixmonths which, undoubtedly, would have 266 3 C.L.R. D.E.L. Klrzl· v. Impr. Board Yennasoyia Dem«triao*sJ. caused themconsiderable lossintheirnetincomeforthatperiod. Asaresult,onthe4thOctober, 1983.theapplicantswrote aletter totherespondents,therelevant partofwhich reads: 5 10 15 20 25 30 «Λυπούμαστε ναπαρατηρήσουμε ότι θεωρούμετην επιβολήτου όρουαυτούυπερβολικάάδικηκαι άκαιρη τη στιγμή που υπάρχει σχέδιο για κατασκευή στο σύντομο μέλλον κεντρικούαποχετευτικού συστήματος που καλύπτει και την περιοχή Γερμασόγειας. Είναι άδικονα υποχρεωθούμεναυποστούμετώραμιατόσο μεγάλη δαπάνη γιαένα έργο που θααχρηστευτεί σε δυότοπολύτρία χρόνια. Παρακαλούμε ναεπανεξετάσετε το όλο θέμα και μη επιμείνετε στο παρόν στάδιον στη κατασκευήτέτοιου συστήματος. Εμείςδε αναλαμβάνουμε την υποχρέωση να κατασκευάσουμε το σύστημα βιολογικής επεξεργασίας των λυμάτων τηςτουριστικής μονάδας μας αν σε κάποιο στάδιο για οποιοδήποτε λόγο εγκαταληφθεί η κατασκευή του κεντρικού αποχετευτικού συστήματος στην περιοχή Γερμασόγειας.» («Weregrettopointoutthatweconsidertheimpositionofthis condition highly unjustified anduntimely since there isa scheme forthe construction, inthe near future, ofacentral. sewage system which coversalsothe Yermasoyia area. It is unjustified for us to be obliged to suffer nowsuch great expenseforworksthatwill,intwotomaximumthreeyears,be useless. We pray thatyoureconsider thewholematterandnotInsist, at this stage, onthe construction of such a system. We undertaketheobligation toconstructthebiologicalsystemof our touristic unit if at some stage for any reason the constructionofthecentralsewagesystemintheYermasoyia areaisabandoned*). By their letter dated the 7th February, 1984, the respondents 35 rejected therequest oftheapplicants, thusthepresent recourse, by which theapplicantspray foradeclarationthatthedecisionof therespondents,communicatedtothembythetatters'letterdated 267 D e m e t r i a d e s J. D.E.L Klrxl* v. Impr. Board Yermaeoyi·

(1987)the 7th February, 1984, to insist on and notto remove thesub judice conditioninthebuilding permit No. 1136, datedthe2nd June, 1983, is null andvoid andof noeffect whatsoever, being contrarytothelawand/ortheConstitutionand/orbeinginexcess orinabuse ofpower. 5 The grounds of law, on which the applicants base their recourse,are (

1. a)Thatthedecision inquestionisnotreasonedatall. (
2. b)That the decision was reached without taking all relevant factors intoconsideration,and 10 (
3. c)thatthe decision is oppressive and in itself is inabuse of the powersvested intherespondents. Therespondentsopposetherecourseonanumberofgrounds, two of which I find have tobe decided inthefirst instance.They are— (a)Was the recourse filed within the period provided by Article 146

(3)of theConstitution?And (b)Arethecontentsoftheletteroftherespondents,datedthe7th February,1984,ofanexecutorynatureorwasitaconfirmationof their decision of the 2nd June, 1983, when the sub judice 20 conditionwas communicatedtothem? Before proceedingwiththegroundsoflawonwhichthepresent recourse hasbeen based, itispertinenttoexamine,atthisstage, thepreliminary objections raised by counselfor therespondents. Ithas been submitted inthis respect by him thatthesub judice 25 decision is not of an executory nature as it simply confirms a previous decision inthesamematterand,therefore, itcannotbe made the subject of a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution. Also, that the present recourse is out of time. Referencehasbeenmade,inthisrespect,totheConclusionsfrom 30 the Case-law of the Councilof State in Greece, 1929 — 1959, wherethefollowingarestated(atp.240): ^Πράξεις βεβαιωτικοί. Απαραδέκτως προσβάλλονται δι' αιτήσεως ακυρώσεως,ως στερούμενα)εκτελεστού χαρακτήρος,αιβεβαιωτικοίπράξεις,ήτοιαιπράξειςαι 35 268 15 3 C.L.R. D.E.L. Klrzta v. Impr. Board Yermasoyia DemetriadesJ . 5 10 15 20 25 εχουσαι τ ο α υ τ ό περιεχόμενον προς προεκδοθείσαν εκτελεοτήν, επιβεβαιούσαι ταύτην, ανεξαρτήτως τ ο υ αν εκδίδωνται αυτεπαγγέλτως ή τ η αιτήσει τ ο υ ενδια­ φερομένου. Ο ύ τ ω είναι βεβαιωτική η πράξις η συνιοτώσα απλήν επανάληψινπρογενεστέρας, ή στηριζο­ μένη επί της αυτής πραγματικής νομικής βάσεως Πράξις δηλούσα απλήν εμμονήν της Διοικήσεωςεις προηγούμενην πράξιν,έστω και μη επαναλαμβάνουσα το περιεχόμενον ταύτης, αποτελεί επίσης βεβαιωτικήν πράξιν, ως λ χ. η εμμονή ειςπρογενεστέραν άρνησιν. Ούτω εκρίθησαν βεβαιωτικοί πράξεις η άρνησιςτης Διοικήσεως όπως ανακαλέση προηγούμενην εκτελε­ οτήν πράξιν, η απόρριψις απλής ιεραρχικής προσφυ­ γής ήαιτήσεως θεραπείας.» («Confirmatory acts Unacceptably they are attacked by recourse for annulment, as lacking executory character, confirmatory acts, ιe acts which have the same contents with a pre-issued executory one, confirming same, irrespective of whether they are issued on the motion of the administration or on the application of the interested party. Thusconfirmatory isanactwhich consists ofamererepetition of aprevious one, based on thesame factual andlegalbasis An act stating a mere persistence of the administration to a previous act,even though itdoes not repeat its contents also constitutesaconfirmatory act,as for instancethe persistence toaprevious refusal Thustherefusal of theAdministration to revoke a previous executory act, the dismissal of a simple hierarchical recourse or an application for relief were considered as confirmatory acts») 30 Inmy view, the contents of the respondents' letter of the 7th February, 1984, do not create any new legal situation or an obligation by therespondentstotake anew decision. Forsuch a situationtoanse theapplicantshadtosupply therespondentswith facts that were not before them when they were taking their 35 decision of the2ndJune, 1983. Itisclearfrom thefacts ofthiscase that the only request of the applicants was thatthe respondents reconsideredthematterandnottoinsist ontheimplementationof the sub judice decision. The fact that a central sewage and drainage system for the Limassol area, including the Yermasoyia 40 area, would be constructed, was well known to both sides when 269 Dcmetriades J . D.E.L. Klnta v. Impr. Board Yermasoyia

(1987)the subjudice condition wasimposedandaccepted. However, between the2ndJune, 1983,and the4th October, 1983, when the applicants sent their letter, no new facts to be considered bytherespondents wereputforward bythemandas a resultthesubjudice decision couldnot beanythingelsebuta 5 confirmation ofthedecision forthe2ndJune,1983. In the circumstances of the case, I find that the sub judice decisionisnotofanexecutorynaturebutitisonlya confirmation ofapreviousdecisiontakenbytheadministrativeorgantowhich theapplicantsaddressedtheirdemand. As regards now the second issue raised by counsel for the 10 respondents, namelythattherecoursewasfiled outoftime,itis providedbyArticle146

(3)oftheConstitutionthatarecoursemust bemadewithinseventy-fivedaysofthedatewhenthedecisionor act of an administrative organ came to the knowledge of the person making the recourse. Inihe present case, inview of my 15 aboveconclusion,Iamoftheopinionthatthisrecoursewasfiled outoftimeanditmustbedismissedaccordingly. Intheresult,thisrecouseisdismissedwithcosts. Recoursedismissedwithcosts. 270